Talk:Richard Barlow (intelligence analyst)

Fact Checking
The article currently states, "Within days of Barlow's sharing his concerns with colleagues at the Department of Defense he was fired." The citations attached to this statement are the Washington Post, Kentucky.com (using a Christian Science Monitor article) and The Economist.

The Washington Post blatently states, "Barlow was fired."

Kentucky.com states that Mr. Barlow "was run out of Washington."

The Economist says, "He lost his job."


 * The New Yorker: "Two days later, Brubaker called Barlow into his office and, with no warning, handed him a letter of termination. He stood accused, as he did not know at the time, of being a national-security risk to the United States. He was stripped of all his classified clearances and given three weeks to clear out of his office. Barlow decided to fight the dismissal. He spent the next eighteen months assigned to a Defense Department personnel pool, under surveillance by Pentagon security officers." Relata refero (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is interesting is that one of the sources cited in the article ("The Raw Story"), but not used for Barlow's termination information, quotes Mr. Barlow saying, "I left of my own free will, relatively speaking. I could have stayed—but I wasn't going to put up with that shit. I was caught in the middle of a massive battle between the cold warriors and the counterproliferation forces in the CIA."

I realize that "The Raw Story" isn't as reputable as "The Washington Post," but I would think that a direct quote from Richard Barlow would count more than a reporter's statement, particularly in such a sensational case. As a general rule, sensational stories should be analyzed with skepticism, and should require the strongest possible evidence.

The article has a fairly glaring inaccuracy at the end, when it states that Richard Barlow lives in a mobile home. He does not live in a mobile home; he lives in a motor home, which he drives to Arizona in the Winter.

What I see in the article is that the author is trying to paint the most pathetic portrait of Mr. Barlow possible, at government expense. The reality appears to be a bit different; Richard Barlow's current life is mostly of his own choosing. The article does not reflect that sense. Pooua (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Washington Post has 2 versions of this story online. The version used in this article does not have any photos; the other version does. Specifically, the other version has a photo of Richard Barlow sitting on the retractable steps of his fairly upscale motor home (the caption calls it a trailer, but it is obviously not a trailer).

Washington Post: Whistle-Blower's Fight For Pension Drags On

The articles and news stories might lead one to believe that Richard Barlow is hurting for money. But, the motor home he owns and lives in is expensive. It appears to be similar to those shown on the website for Fleetwood; new models cost around $275k. Keep in mind that Barlow is fighting to get a government pension that is far from the poverty line, too. So, don't get the idea that his mis-adventures have left him near financial bankruptcy. Pooua (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pooua (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we reflect what has been published in reliable sources, and they overwhelmingly don't share that view. The price of these models and putting them together with a photograph is OR. Relata refero (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC) And I don't think that mobile home vs motor home is a glaring inaccuracy, especially when the caption says "trailer" and it pretty much looks like a trailer. Relata refero (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in that Washington Post photo looks like any trailer I have ever seen. It is obviously a motor home. The fact that the Washington Post identifies it as a trailer calls their fact checking into question. I don't believe that OR bans the use of brains or eyes, common Wiki experience notwithstanding. Pooua (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you insist its not a trailer, its not a trailer. I find myself unable to fight to the death about it. Relata refero (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that deducing Barlow's wealth based indirectly on photos or articles is OR. However, it is OR either to say or imply that he is wealthy or impoverished, making the tone of the article imply one way or the other. I think that Wikipedia should avoid making sensational claims. What I see in the media sources--and this is a tendency of news media in general--is an effort to hype and sensationalize the story. I am fairly certain that is particularly happening in the situation of Richard Barlow. When this story is told, the natural tendency is to tell it as a "man crushed by government" tale. Wikipedia should not take that tone unless a source specifically describes how this is so. Pooua (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've thought hard about that point, but I'm afraid I don't think that's possible. If you can find a reliable source anywhere that says that Barlow is exaggerating his status in order to process his application quicker, that might be OK to put in, but I don't think we can come to these conclusions ourselves, especially when the RSes are universally against us. Relata refero (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New story
There's a new WP story here: They've corrected the "trailer" mistake, and I fixed it in the lede. I do think it's an important distinction and we should get this right. He also has three dogs now, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to correct that. There may be other useful information in the WP story. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Another story appeared in Newsweek 2013-12-04, (which appeared the previous day under a different headline: "The Man Who Warned Congress about Pakistan Nukes Paid a Steep Price").


 * The details in this report are a little different:


 * Barlow's testimony in 1987 shocked several panel members of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee, in part because Army General David Einsel, assigned to the CIA as a top intelligence official, had just told the committee that - despite the recent arrest of a Pakistani caught red-handed buying prohibited nuclear materials - the evidence that Islamabad was pursuing a bomb was inconclusive. The hearing erupted in shouts when Barlow told them differently.


 * This report also mentions a book that's not currently cited in this article:


 * Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark (2007) Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons


 * A Guardian article by Levy and Scott-Clark is cited, but not this book. It might be wise for someone to look at this book:  It it seems to meet quality standards for citing sources, then it may be smart to look for conflicts between this article and that book, and check sources cited here and in that book, note what is found here, and revise this article as seems appropriate.


 * In the meantime, I'm adding a brief summary of that 2013 Newsweek article to this present article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * mention Robert Gallucci, whom they say was a "special adviser on WMD to both Clinton and George W Bush". I'm not convinced, because the Wikipedia article on Gallucci says he was Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, July 13, 1992 – October 11, 1994.  Later, in "March 1998, the Department of State appointed him as special envoy to deal with the threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction, a position which he held until January 2001."  George H. W. Bush was president January 20, 1989, to January 20, 1993.  Bill Clinton served as president January 20, 1993, to January 20, 2001, when George W. Bush took office.  This raises questions about the scholarship of Levy and Scott-Clark:  Gallucci clearly served in the administration of presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton.  However, if Gallucci left government service in January 2001, as it says, he could not have served in the George W. Bush administration for more than 11 days, and if he left before January 20, he didn't serve under GW Bush at all.
 * That's not the only concern I have about Levy and Scott-Clark's scholarship: Elsewhere, they say, "After graduation in 1981, ... Barlow won an internship at the State Department's Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) ... . Within months Barlow was out of a job", when President Reagan cut the agency by one third.  This may be accurate, but  says Barlow worked a couple of years with the ACDA before joining the CIA in 1985.  Barlow could have worked for the ACDA for a few months in 1981, as Levy and Scott-Clark said, then returned in 1983, as Hersh indicated.
 * However, I don't have resources that could clarify these questions. I therefore think we would not be wise to put too much faith in Levy and Scott-Clark without further checking.  That's sad, because they have a 2007 book that should be clearly relevant to this article.  However, I don't think I'll take the time to study their book at the present.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblower?
As of 2021-11-27 the section on "Events following dismissal" said, "Barlow is a whistleblower because he lawfully disclosed, in a classified briefing to a committee of the US Congress, information that his management did not want shared with Congress."

I think this should say he was NOT a whistleblower, because he did NOT expose classified information to the public. The exposure came as a result of a lawsuit he filed for wrongful termination. I've modified that text accordingly. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)