Talk:Richard Armitage (government official)/Archives/2017

Naval Career
When I get around to it, I am going to try and flesh out his naval career in greater detail. Do Kiem's book Counterpart, ISBN 1557501815, talks a bit about Armitage's Vietnam service. I will also try and find an official Navy bio of him. My interest in this bio only pertains to his military service. --Johnfmh 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found some more material on his naval service from a bio posted on the White House web page. I also found a good quotation from Do Kiem's book, Counterpart, ISBN 1557501815. Kiem had nothing but respect for Mr. Armitage. Unlike other officers with whom he served, Kiem felt that Armitage had good grasp of the Vietnamese language and was never patronizing or condescending towards the Vietnamese. Kiem's portrayal of Armitage, in short, is very different from President Musharraf's. --Johnfmh 15:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Khun Sa etc. material
The deletion seems to suggest that these things are so far beyond the pale that we can't even talk about whether they belong in the article or not. While we should definitely exercise great care with this material, it's hard to say that the criticisms made against Richard Armitage by a foreign military leader and a significant U.S. presidential candidate are not notable. Nareek 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The plain fact is that within Wikipedia, notably on James "Bo" Gritz's page, the allegations regarding Armitage and drug dealing appear. So what is the problem with them being on Armitage's page? The allegations are NOT beyond the pale; if they are, they should be removed from Gritz' page as well. The allegations are documented, and should remain. atty1chgo 1:08, 8 June 2009 (CST)


 * The Christic Institute and Khun sa charges are now in the story. The way that this material was previously used in the article was atrocious, a clear violation of WP:BLP "rules". In a reasonable article, such dubious material would be completely omitted, but wikipedia being what it is, the alternatives are to keep removing it from the article and battle on the talk page, or put an accurate summary in the article. My objection to this is that major pieces of Armitage's career are omitted, such as his work on Southeast Asian MIAs, and the Christic and Khun sa material takes up a far greater percentage of the article than rational biography warrants. The article remains scarred by decade old partisan squabbles, and still gives a grotesquely inaccurate picture of Armitage's career. Rgr09 (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Plame Affair Section
This section is poorly written and lacks a concise narrative of the events leading up to Armitage admitting he was the source of the leaked information. I would suggest a more experienced writer than myself rewrite this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.32.208 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)