Talk:Lawrence Franklin

Untitled
Content moved to Talk:AIPAC espionage scandal see below. --Uncle Bungle 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Separate article about investigation
This is getting too unwieldy and about a lot more than Franklin. Shouldn't much of the scandal story be spun off into its own article? Any suggestions for what to call it?Daniel Case 03:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, this has been done. Discussion and editing will continue at AIPAC espionage scandal. Daniel Case 19:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Excessive external links
The article currently has 2 sentences in the body, but 26 external links. Are they all really necessary? --Delirium 08:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that while there are too much, that doesn't mean they should all be deleted (TDC). People should decide which ones are unnecessary and which ones are good.  Rory 0 96 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Have at it then, but most of them are most certainly not. Ten Dead Chickens 22:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Relate d Articles
I removed the link to the related article entitled "Harold Rhode" for two reasons: 1) After some research, Harold Rhode does not have an article, nor does he possess the political relevance to merit one. 2) The website cited employs shaky sources and seems to be more opinion than fact. Mr.lightbulb 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV/Please review the page history
There seems to be a definite slant here. If you're going to include the info from the ISG, include ALL the info from the ISG that relates. Don't reference the WMD precursor stockpiles and then hedge on what they were meant for. History here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Franklin&diff=92219163&oldid=86876048 indicates the editing body so far wants the info included but history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Franklin&diff=92241813&oldid=92219163 shows that there is no desire to be completely honest about it. The ISG found they had the ability to create WMD they simply hadn't. To say they had no "current capacity" is incorrect. It's not "hypothetical" at all. Read the ISG report and article. Neospooky 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please point out where in the ISG report this information is supported. Abe Froman 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is documented in the ISG article here on Wikipedia under the Duelfer Report subheading. It is also available via https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf with the pertinent information on page 14 (page 2 in the chemical section).  In addition, I'm sensing a double standard when I'm required to find the actual citations beyond the links provided and "nor any present capability to produce them" passes without any citation at all.  If the edit is changed again I will be disputing the NPOV of this article. Neospooky 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The ISG report says, "based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months." Probably. Not did.  This passage on Iraqi WMD does not belong in this article because it involves hypotheticals.  Other wikipedia articles, such as the one on Pearl Harbor, do not include historical hypotheticals such as "What if the Japanese didn't attack."  This article should not start such a trend.  Abe Froman 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though the report is quoted almost verbatim your edit includes oddly placed quotation marks, stressing the 'probably'. This is a clear example of NPOV and covered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Irony  If you look at the history, the passage on WMDs was perfectly acceptable to the editing body when it falsely claimed no capacity for production existed, but when the facts come into play (capacity and precursors existed) it turns into this.  Hence the NPOV dispute going up.  Also added additional information due to the inclusion of "if they had chosen to do so" which begs the question of likelihood. Neospooky 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Quote the ISG all you need, that belongs in the ISG article. This article concerns Larry Franklin, and thanks to your edits 10% of the article no longer has anything to do with him.  These recent ISG edits are not in the interests of the article.  Abe Froman 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
Aside from spite, why is there an NPOV tag on the Larry Franklin Article concerning Iraqi WMD? This article is about Larry Franklin, not Iraqi WMD. Abe Froman 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Personal attack aside, the information on WMD was included in the article when I came upon it and was incorrect. I corrected it.  Now we're here.  You've had edits in the past with the inaccurate WMD information in the article and have not made an issue of it, now that it reflects the facts you don't want it included.  Instead of spite, I'd say there's a definite agenda at work. Neospooky 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How is the statement, "no large stocks of WMD were ever found," inaccurate? I am not the editor adding hypothetical situations such as Iraq 'probably' could have had WMD if they 'chose' to have it.  Rather than spinning a yarn, stick to the facts, not alternative history that never happened.  Abe Froman


 * The statement I altered was "no capacity." The article already says there were no stocks of WMD found, there's no need to say it twice.  If you feel the impact of "there were no stocks of WMD found" is degraded by including it in the same sentence explaining that there existed a capacity, then remove the first time it is stated and put it in its own sentence.  There's no yarn spinning to be found, it's all documented, you've been provided the sourcing. Neospooky 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, I'll change the last sentence to read "Post invasion, the OSP's evidence of large stocks of WMD in Iraq proved inaccurate. The Iraq Survey Group found Iraq probably could have produced WMD again, but was not found to be producing it at the time of the invasion."  Abe Froman 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Crud, I was responding and saw your original draft of the sentence. I'm almost cool with that.  The 'probably' only references the mustard gas.  Nerve gas production was an ability separated from actualization only by time.  In keeping with the original spirits of the phrasing of "no capacity" I'd suggest having it say: "The Iraq Survey Group found Iraq had the capacity to produce WMD, but was not producing nor planning to produce at the time of the invasion." That keeps it short and takes into consideration the nerve gas. Neospooky 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the 'probably' should remain, because the ISG did not give 100% certainty to Iraq's WMD production ability, and 'probably' is a word they used in the report. I just want the sentence short, so this article remain about Larry Franklin.  If this is acceptable, please remove the NPOV tag.  Abe Froman 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See preceding, I was editing at the same time. Also, interim progress report describing a definite capacity to create:https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html Neospooky 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Works. I'll use your sentence, and also remove the NPOV tag.  Abe Froman 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Abe, I just wanted to say that this addition: "OSP's evidence of large stocks of WMD in Iraq proved inaccurate" was a very nice bit of writing and, I think, made the section perfect. I'm glad we could come to an agreement. Neospooky 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion
Franklin is a relgious catholic. Here's the reference...http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001074.html


 * He is catholic. Here is one reference. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JoelMowbray/2004/09/20/the_spies_who_arent This is useful because many people think he is jewish.  HE IS NOT. Fermat1999 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger
Under WP:OneEvent, I argue that this article should be merged into Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal. Thoughts? ShamWow (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection here. I think you have a good argument. Go ahead. Ray  Talk 05:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. One thing - not exactly sure how to do it. Also, I want to make sure all the appropriate info gets transferred. Can ye advise me? ShamWow (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Help:Merge seems to be a guide. It's pretty straightforward -- you cut and paste, trimming out redundant information, and leave a redirect behind here, not forgetting to clean up double redirects. Ray  Talk 05:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I'll try and get on it within the next few days. ShamWow (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)