Talk:Lawrence Wilkerson

"mouth piece" and image
Is there any proof that Colin feed him with information or how did one arrive he is a mouth piece of the later? Common guys, I wouldn't say that is objective.

And since he is a former employee of USA government, there is bound to be a picture somewhere in the web whose copyright is owned by USA government. That can sit well on this page, in my opinion


 * From the first linked WP article:
 * he was often described by colleagues as the man who would say what Powell was thinking but was too discreet to say
 * The term "mouth piece" was taken from another news report I read.
 * I have already looked at his official bio which, strangely, doesn't have a photo and done an unsuccessful google image search of the .gov and .mil domains.
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). - BanyanTree 20:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I meet on a regular basis with Mr. Wilkerson and I may soon ask him for a photo to add to his bio. 138.88.106.174 04:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC) ETep
 * Thanks for your help. There must be a photo taken by a federal employee in the course of his/her duties that (which is automatically in the public domain); even a link to such a webpage would be much appreciated.  We could certainly just take any photo and claim fair use, but I tend to avoid fair use if at all possible. - BanyanTree 12:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Wilkerson edit
it seems to me that United States Department of State as a category and as it stands now deals with units or organizations within the department, not people nessacarily, &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briaboru (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Feel free to move it down into a relevant subcategory. In cases where there are no such subcategories, there are two options: keeping an article in the general, high-level category OR creating a new sub-category and populating it with relevant articles. - BanyanTree 01:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are my external links being deleted. They are not spam or self promotion just links to interviews he has conducted. Pdrosso (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

excessive quotation
I am concerned that this article is excessively skewed toward his recent criticism of the current administration, in particular in the use of quotations. This is a biography and his recent stance is not necessarily the most notable thing about the man. - BanyanTree 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Wilkerson's criticism of the Iraq War intelligence, as specifically stated in his NAF speech, is directed at the worldwide intelligence community and not just the Bush Administration.  People are trying to use selective quotes from Wilkerson and titling it "Criticism of the Bush Administration" which is not entirely accurate.  He specifically singles out the French in his NAF speech.  Either his entire criticism should be included or it should be framed in a way that does NOT show bias. Jeravicious 04:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually think that you were disagreeing with me, but that's besides the point. ;)  The point is not that his criticism has to be comprehensive in order not to show bias, though that his recent criticisms are a secondary matter to the man.   Again, this article is not Criticisms by Lawrence Wilkerson; it is a biography.  I took a breather and re-read it this morning.  It's not quite as blatant now that it is worded as if it is a synthesis of his criticisms rather than in block quotes, so I'll leave it be.  (Full disclosure: I was the one who had added the first block quote, but that was when the article was a stub so anything was an improvement.)  Extended block quotes like the ones inserted previously should go at Wikiquote, assuming that they fall under the GFDL.
 * BTW, has anyone been able to find a usable photo? How is it possible for someone to spend most of their life in government service for the U.S. and not have public domain photos of themselves? - BanyanTree 14:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My quarrel with many of the entries in Wikipedia is that quotes are often included in order to show a specific POV bias. When quotes are included which present the opposite point of view they are then removed by people (Admins?) with the comment: "We've got enough quotes...any additional quotes should go in Wikiquote"  I am of the opinion that most if not all quotes regardless of their point of view are basically irrelevant to a supposed Encyclopia bio entry.  However, due to the "bias" that exists on Wikipedia, removing those other quotes are out of the question - people just add them back in.  So....I test the limits of Wikipedias so-called NPOV stance.  Have a look at the Norah O'Donnell entry.  I balanced the Criticism section with a similar Praise section....both seem irrelevant, but since they won't remove the Criticism section, I added Praise to balance out the "insanity" Jeravicious 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are free to synthesize the quotations into text. Again, quotations tend to be a shortcut for someone who doesn't want to boil it down into a summary, as I freely admit I did when I started this article.  However, I certainly did so with the knowledge that creating an article that was mostly quotations was a kludge until a proper article could coalesce, which is precisely why I will resist attempts to further make this article largely a collection of quotes.  Since you seem to agree with this, I fail to see why you insist on not simply describing Wilkerson's opinions rather than testing NPOV in what appears to be a making a point.  I also fail to see why you feel that criticism by Wilkerson is balanced by more criticism by Wilkerson, rather than criticism of Wilkerson, which appears to be what you have done with the Norah O'Donnell entry.  Fortunately, I have seen enough editing on the wiki that I'm still not fussed.  See another example of excessive quotations being removed with a recommendation for Wikiquotes here.
 * I find the "(Admins?)" interjection a bit confusing and tangential. Have I or anyone else attempted to use their possession of admin privileges to interfere with your editing or threaten to interfere with your editing?  We are having a content dispute, albeit a rather minor one, the basis of which I remain unsure. - BanyanTree 04:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you and I are disagreeing or agreeing here... In the Wilkerson entry, someone added a section called "Criticism of the Bush Administration" and included Wilkerson's quotes from his NAF speech. Whoever did this obviously did it in an attempt to be biased.  So, not wanting to just remove the entry because people just add it back because of the well-known left leaning WikiBias that exists, I added more quotes from the same speech in which he criticised the worldwide intelligence community.  I did the same with the Norah O'Donnell entry.  After questioning the editors of the entry for writing an entire Criticism section that was longer than her Bio, and removing the criticism as just POV, they were just added back in.  So, in an effort to be fair, I decided that if the Left's viewpoint is Criticism, then is the Right's view of the SAME material to be considered Praise?  We will see. Jeravicious 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Diktat v. Dictate
Dear BanyanTree, that "diktat" edit was not an experiment or vandalism. I had changed "dictate" to "diktat" because, even though the PBS transcript says otherwise, "diktat" is the word Wilkerson actually said in the interview. You can listen to the mp3 of the show at the following PBS website (relevant part is at around 16 minutes 15 seconds in): NOW mp3

I have not reedited the page. 138.88.239.35 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi .35, I've taken your word for it and reverted myself.  It's not necessary, of course, but I would recommend that you make an account.  I see a lot of IP numbers on the wiki and didn't realize that you were the one who had added the original content until I looked at the page history. Sorry about that, BanyanTree 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism"
Having given the "intelligence was a hoax" section a major overhaul, I just read the "excessive quotation" discussion and realized that maybe I'd better try justifying my actions. As BanyanTree points out the article is not "criticism by" and my additions are not meant to turn it into that. I do think that the main reason people will look him up is his media profile, and I figured that if the one instance was worth noting then the profile of criticisms had better be representative. I think it's important to show that he has a history of criticizing the administration (whether you think this is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" is really irrelevant; showing his record is not in breach of NPOV), and that the workings of the Bush administration is a red thread running through his various policy criticisms.

In short, I think the reason there is an entry on him is because he criticizes; otherwise few if any would have heard of him (or alas, care). Saying that there should not be a section about these pronounciations would be like saying the Picasso article has too much stuff about painting in it. I do however agree that responses to his criticism is much needed (but hard to come by - I have searched the BBC) in order to balance out the article.

I will also try to turn some of the inline quoations into summaries... :) chochem 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" - AIPAC and the Iraq War
I don't understand why this article lists Wilkerson's comments on AIPAC in a controversy section. It is well known here in Washington that AIPAC is one of the strongest lobbies in town. Walt and Mearsheimer's book "The Israel Lobby" spelled out the role of this lobby in the lead up to the Iraq War.

Of course, strident pro-Israel groups will attack anyone who criticizes AIPAC, so making such comments does inherently court controversy. But this Wikipedia article does not make this point clear. This should either be spelled out bluntly, or Wilkerson's comments on AIPAC should be removed along with the controversy section or placed somewhere else in the page, perhaps into an "opinions" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.181.105 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Post-retirement and criticism section
This section of the article needs to be retitled as Post-retirement accusations and criticisms of the Bush-Cheney Administration, since it has nothing to do with with his retirement except in reference to his accusations and criticisms of the Bush-Cheney administration.

And to be perfectly honest, unless there is some balance OR a reference factually confirming his accusations, this section should be retitled as Wilkerson's post-retirement conspiracy theories.

Personally, I'd be VERY interested in finding out how the Bush-Cheney administration (or their allies) would respond to his statements but, since that is not likely to happen any time soon, the title of this section needs to be changed.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Wilkerson's criticisms should be labeled "conspiracy theories", because that's discrediting, and not warranted unless they are clearly debunked. How about "accusations"? That doesn't support or deny the veracity of Wilkerson's criticisms. Grr82 (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Add a section "Support for civil liberties"?
The following factoid may be added to a future "civil liberties" section: Col. Wilkerson is one of several high-ranking military officers who wrote an amicus brief supporting a former National Park Service employee in his lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior, claiming that the erection of a Christian cross on federal land to commemorate veterans violates the constitution's establishment clause. Grr82 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Lawrence Wilkerson. 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 tag to https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie2Gewi7L3__bSzBds095stmE88QD971APO00
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thewashingtonnote.com%2Farchives%2F2009%2F03%2Fsome_truths_abo%2F%3Fref%3Dfp2&date=2009-03-19 with http://www.webcitation.org/5fP6wI7w8?url=http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/?ref=fp2 on http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/?ref=fp2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Agenda-driven edits by anonymous editor
An anonymous editor made numerous changes in the last day, reverting edits made by me and others, inclduing removal wholesale of sections. Most of the edits give a reason in the edit summary that appear plausible if you don't look deeply.


 * Typo
 * Doesn't make any sense and incorrect spelling. No need to provide definitions
 * Removed unsubstantiated claims of antisemitism
 * There were typos and pro Zionist rhetoric with spelling mistakes added

However, as you look down the list, you see that the editor is focused on all the accusations of antimsemitism against the subject, Wilkerson. Further, many of those edits summaries are patently false. For example, the one labelled "Typo" doesn't remove any typographical errors. It removed an adjective phrase describing Russia Today and Press TV as antisemitic state actors. I happen to disagree with the editor who put that phrase in to begin with, and I'm not against removal, but the point is that the anonymous editor is trying to hide exactly what they're doing.

ALmost all the material deleted is well-sourced. The edits are a blatant attempt to hide or downplay the well-documented antisemitism of the subject. If the anonymous editor was more subtle, they could have made more surgical cuts and rewordings, and used a registered account, even a new one. But this stood out and is pretty cut-and-dried. These are pretty much all bad edits, and needed to be reverted.

If you disagree, feel free to explain where I've misunderstood. Dovid (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Breach of Neutrality
Someone keeps adding to the article asserting that Wilkerson's criticism of Israel is purely antisemitic and concluding that the right way to interpret his statements is that he is antisemitic. I understand that this is a touchy subject, but that's completely unnecessary. Provide the statement and let the reader decide what they think of it. There's also a ton of typos and a weird use of quotations in the sections about antisemitism. Things like "supposedly" and "allegedly." Very unprofessional and very biased. I removed some sections that were obviously showing pro-Israel bias. Billie Lean (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I would like to add, I do not think we should remove the antisemitism section, but there was obviously "any critique of Israel or Zionism is antisemitic" thing going on. It's not our job to tell the reader that. Billie Lean (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See previous section. I don't really buy the argument, because the argument itself is subjective and should have been discussed before making radical edits. If you like, respond to the previous section where I raised the issue earlier.

Added to article Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
As of March 2024, he is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/25/vips-memo-the-french-road-to-nuclear-war Ironcurtain2 (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)