Talk:Sibel Edmonds

Judges edit
I have little problem with stating "three Republican judges", but it would be much better to instead just name/link the judges. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

English
Just a guess, but shouldn't she be listed as fluent in English as well? Easytoremember 12:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, tossed it in, thanks Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Truther
Here is a interview she had with Alex Jones: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/240706insidejob.htm], it should be added to the article. --Striver 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In that 2006 Alex Jones interview she states: "I have all the evidence of cover-up. Now, who were the people behind this? And why? And how? We don't have a definite answer." but didn't have as much information as she does now. For example, she proclaims several times that she is not just a Truther but "every kind of Truther" referring to 9-11, Oklahoma City, Boston, Gladio B, etc false flag events in the YouTube video #R9K5I8SIwoM 'Glenn Greenwald, NSA Documents & Checkbook Journalism - BFP Roundtable #02' (Dec 19, 2013) {Boiling Frogs Post}. JasonCarswell (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories
Why is there nothing about Sibel Edmonds and what she discovered on 9/11 conspiracy theories? --Espoo (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

She does not believe in the 9/11 conspiracies. People have said it to either say she's just a conspiracy theorist, and people who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy believe she agrees with them. She's never mentioned these theories, and, besides, it can't be in the article without a source. 69.220.2.188 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Her relation to 9-11 is limited to her helping the Farsi translator make his allegations known - as far as I have seen. She was asked to appear before the 9-11 commission, to talk about, she conjectures, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (see Ohio Elections deposition, page 44 and following), but since she was prevented from appearing, she doesn't know what they wanted. In the Alex Jones interview cited above, she does say that a domestic conspiracy wouldn't surprise her, but that is clearly an opinion, and based probably on the amount of duplicity and cover-up that she feels she experienced in her own case, and, of course, the experience of the Farsi translator in her office. His story began before she worked there, since she started work after 9-11. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Given that she has now published this story on her own website, detailing quite clearly her role in at least whistle blowing about ignored 'foreknowledge of 9/11' - http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/02/01/the-fbi-%E2%80%9Ckamikaze-pilots%E2%80%9D-case/ - isn't it time to revisit this position? Utunga (talk)

Nice! I see that any mention of her own statement that she translated while working at the FBI a statement that


 * Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this (I assumed he meant the CIA or the White House).

And furthermore her own statement that Edmonds (along with other agents) according to her own statements, reported this information internally at the FBI but, according to Edmonds, and that no one at the bureau ever asked for follow-ups or further information prior to 9/11

I just think its AWWESOME that this has now been removed from the page completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utunga (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Role in 9/11 warnings
According to a page on her own website: FBI & Kamikaze Pilots Ms. Edmonds had no professional role as a translator in the matter concerning the Iranian asset and his interview with FBI agents. She was told about the matter by another translator. Thus the claims that had been made in this article that she translated documents about 9/11 warnings were false. This point is reiterated by her specifically in a legal deposition:

"Q: Now, one of the other entries indicates, it says 911 For Knowledge, and I'll just read it. It says, "She claims that the FBI received information in April 2001 from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset that Osama bin Ladin was planning attacks on four to five cities with planes. Some of the people were already in the country, and the attacks would happen in a few months."

Did you -- did you make that claim?

A: I took the language specialist, Farsi speaking language specialist, senior language specialist from the Iranian Division, Farsi Division, FBI, Washington field office, who worked right next to me, to the 9/11 Commission and Inspector General's Office, and he testified on this.

He informed me and he showed me this translator Bekru (phonetic) Sharsahr, and there are documents out there that he went to

page 67

the Inspector General's Office. He gave them the documents, the translated documents on the Iranians. '''I was not part of that translation. I was not involved.''' After I left the FBI because I was witness to that department, what they had obtained, I just facilitated Mr. Sharshar's meeting with 9/11 Commission and also with the Glenn Fine, Department of Justice Inspector General's Office, and I put him in touch with the members of media. But that's my only involvement with that Iranian case.

Q: Do you believe that that's why the 9/11 -- the families of the 9/11 victims wanted to get your testimony in connection with their case?

A: I am not sure because as far as I knew, it had to do with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Arabian financial institutions. I was not told anything about Iranian case."

http://ariwatch.com/Links/SibelEdmondsDeposition2009.htm (page 68)

This should establish the facts on this specific issue. Batvette (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're doing original research, I looked for reliable sources that say what she said is false but there are none, they just ignore her altogether it seems. And the reliable sources for her don't say she was wrong. Popish Plot (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The reference you remove could have been checked using web.archive.org. The site made of a record of the page. As it happens that page was an archive of an Independent story, so I've just directly referenced that. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So you are acknowledging that my edit was correct because the link was broken? Do you expect wiki users to have to use a web archive service to check links? As for the content it was blatantly false it implies she was a translator BEFORE 9/11 and testified as such to some imaginary pre-9/11 hearings. Dont you see how wrong that is? Here are some basic facts: Ms. Edmunds didnt work for the FBI until after 9/11.
 * Web archive is a useful tool for repairing dead links. Thanks for clarifying when Edmonds started working at the FBI.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sibel Edmonds' Webpage(s)
Does she have a personal homepage?--Pejman47 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, http://www.justacitizen.com/ and apparently she has been hired by the National Security Whistle-blowers Coalition. Check out this press release. Excerpts:

James S. 09:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Edmonds’ complaint included allegations of illegal activities by Turkish organizations and their agents I thought they included allegations of illegal activities by Israeli organizations and their agents as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.82.93 (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

She also has Boiling Frogs Post and NewsBud. JasonCarswell (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Needs a re-write
Entire first paragraph stolen from the web. Look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/Sibel%20Edmonds. Copied word for word. Woodsstock 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That page is an excerpt from Wikipedia and even has a link that says "More from Wikipedia". --MattWright (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Stolen" LOL Even if this allegation is true [which it isn't] how much did huffington lose in the paragraph being placed here? I wish people would focus more on writing articles, not on policing them. 69.155.234.250 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO questions about plagiarism are fair. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Turkish-American???
Sibel Edmonds is not Turkish American, she was born in Iran like her parents. She lived for a few years in Istanbul and can speak Turkish, that does not make her a Turk.Orrin_73

Sibel Edmonds is Turkish-American, NOT Iranian-American
Orrin_73 has intentionally changed the page twice now - apparently for his own purposes - without any supporting evidence. Please check any and all articles relating to Sibel Edmonds. Orrin_73's posting is erroneous and misleading, and if he changes it again, he should be barred from Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aajeffersonian (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Aajeffersonian you are an ignorant bigot! You are the one putting erroneous and misleading information in wikipedia, if anyone should be banned thats you. You have no guts to answer my comments, she is no Turkish american. Edmonds is born in iran, she lived for a few years in Turkey. Are you by any chance armenian or greek? Orrin_73


 * You apparently believe that people have to be born in Turkey to be Turks or to have "Turkish" in their ethnogeographic identity. That is an incorrect assumption. She is not a Turkish national; she is of Turkish ethnicity (or possibly of Turkish descent). I pointed this out to you before in the edit summaries but you don't seem to quite get it. When you see a hyphenated term like something-American, the two words mean different things. The 2nd word is a nationality; the country of which the person is a citizen (notwithstanding the possibility of dual citizenship). The 1st word can be a nation as well, but often it's not, and in any case it denotes descent, culture, and/or ethnicity, NOT NATIONALITY.


 * For example, when someone identifies themselves as Arab-American, the "American" part means they are a U.S. citizen, but the "Arab" part doesn't mean they're a citizen of "Arabia". It means they are one of the Arab people. Arab (go read the article) is an ethnicity, a sort of pseudo-race and cultural type, with a population found worldwide, but originating in and concentrated in various Middle Eastern nations.


 * That's why something like Italian-American doesn't usually mean "naturalized American citizen born in Italy" but rather any American citizen (born anywhere) who identifies with the Italian culture (or some diluted American form of it). As I mentioned before, please read Iranian Turks, Turkish people, Turkmen people, ethnicity, etc., and don't change it again. —mjb 00:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sibel Edmonds - Turkish-American
I am Matthew Edmonds, Sibel Edmonds' husband of 15 years, and would like to put this issue to rest. Sibel's birth cetificate was issued by the "Republic of Turkey", as was her passport before she became a U.S. citizen. Orrin_73 has it exactly backwards; rather than, as he claims, being an Iranian who lived a few years in Turkey, Sibel is a Turk, who lived a few years in Iran. Over the years we have traveled many, many times to Turkey, visiting her Turkish family and friends, and making many new Turkish friends of our own. It is wonderful country, full of natural beauty, history, and the most generous, friendly people one could ever hope to meet, and Sibel is understandably very proud of her Turkish heritage.

Orrin_73 is apparently Turkish, and I can't understand why he & other like-minded Turks try to brand her as somehow being "un-Turkish". Criminals & corruption exist in all countries & all governments - neither the United States nor Turkey is exempt. When, because of what Sibel has experienced and what she has done to try to bring the corruption & criminals to light, her case points to corruption & criminality by U.S. citizens, she is viewed in the U.S. as the heroic patriot that she is - not as being un-American. Why is it then, that when this same information points to corruption & criminality of some Turkish persons, those such as Orrin_73 try to brand her as un-Turkish, or by some, even as a traitor to Turkey? Do they condone corruption & criminality by Turks?

Lmedmonds 17:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Matthew Edmonds dont be an idiot, where did I say sibel edmonds is a traitor. Dont write things I have not said and wrote. Read what I wrote before you write next time about me! Orrin_73


 * I know for sure only one thing: The important thing is what she considers herself; maybe we should find a way to ask herself about her nationality? --Pejman47 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that during 15 years of marriage that would have been addressed? We had to present her birth certificate to get married. She had to present proof of her nationality to apply for U.S. citizenship. Of course she considers herself Turkish because she is Turkish.

Lmedmonds 18:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Because this is somewhat controversial, it would be helpful if you can provide some evidence that you are actually Sibel's husband Matthew. I don't mean this as an insult, but we have had impersonators in the past. Would it be possible to make some sort of posting on your official website? Thank you. DS 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insulted, it just seems a little strange having to prove who I am, but I understand, I'm sure there are millions of guys out there who would love to be Sibel's husband and might engage in a little fantasy by posting here. I don't have a website of my own - never had a need - but Sibel does have a website "justacitizen.com" that I could post a message on. Would that be sufficient proof? Lmedmonds 19:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that proving your identity is really necessary -- is anyone disputing that she is Turkish-American with a cited source? The ACLU bio page says Turkish-American, and I can't see where anyone has provided a source saying otherwise. --MattWright (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that in the german wikipedia they (maybe by stating that she was born in Tehran and lived several years there) is Iranian. . So, I think it will make no harm to post it in a temp page in her website. After that you may delete that page, and I will go to german wikipedia and change the problem forever. --Pejman47 21:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just posted a link on the front page of "justacitizen.com" that reads "March 16, 2007: Sibel Edmonds, Turkish American by Matthew Edmonds, which links to the "Kill The Messenger" trailer. I will leave the posting up until tomorrow. This should give all concerned sufficient proof of my identity. Lmedmonds 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm convinced. DS 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that doesn't really cut it. What needs to be placed is a file such as http://justacitizen.com/wikipedia.html which states "Lmedmonds is the Wikipedia identity of Matthew Edmonds, husband of Sibel Edmonds". Once it is verified by a few established users here, it can be deleted (it also doesn't need to be linked from the site's main page). You see, anyone could have waited for the latest post to go up on that site and say "see, I added this".  Sorry for the skepticism, but we recently had a controversy that has prompted discussion of credential verification if you wish to use your credentials in an argument on the talk page of an article. Obviously you do not need to prove your identity to edit the article and contribute -- cited sources and provable facts should be used at all times anyway over someone who claims any sort of credentials. --MattWright (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To MattWright: I believe your skepticism is a little overblown, and I don't really follow your logic. Are you saying that you don't believe that justacitizen.com is Sibel's site? Or is it that you believe a person having the ability to post to that site would be someone else? You say that anyone could have waited for the latest post to go up - but who would have wanted to post the identical message to the site that I gave here - do you think that it is by "accident" that the latest posting on justacitizen.com says "Sibel Edmonds, Turkish American", with my name (when no other postings on the site carry my name) and only links to a page that already has links to it (Kill The Messenger)? Why would Sibel or the legitimate Matthew post such a strange and unnecessary message on the front page - except just for verification? And your rationale for verification by just creating a page stating that I am who I am & waiting for others to verify it doesn't make sense to me - who is going to verify that & what are they going to use to verify it? Anyone who has the ability to post "March 16, 2007: Sibel Edmonds, Turkish American by Matthew Edmonds" on justacitizen.com can just as easily create the page you are suggesting. It seems my posting is a more solid verification. What am I missing?

I am now going to modify the posting on justacitizen.com by adding "--" between Turkish & American" (currently there is just a space)- there would NO rationale for anyone to do that, so you certainly cannot believe that someone waited for that to happen & then posted this message, and if that isn't enough verification for you I will be truly puzzled. Lmedmonds 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I have believed you all along, I guess you just missed the point of what I was trying to say. It is like if I went to cnn.com, read the top headline, came here and said, "I'm going to post 'headline x' to cnn.com to prove I work there" when in fact the headline was already there. I just had no way of knowing whether what you posted here was done prior to the posting on the site or not -- does that make sense? Whereas the method I suggested very clearly shows you are one of the people capable of posting a specific message to justacitizen.com and that the official site is confirming your Wikipedia identity (it also wouldn't have required that you modify the main page for something as little as identification). No one has provided any sources countering what you are trying to verify at this time, anyway (Turkish-American), but maybe this thread can help if the issue comes up in the future. --MattWright (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt: Thanks. This is the first time I have ever had to prove that I am who I say I am, so I might have been a little testy. I do understand your point - my point was that my posting was so specifically addressed to the issue that it would not have been posted for any other reason. But glad we're now on the same page. Hopefully this won't come up again. It is unfortunate that some misguided person tried to make an issue of it. I am now going to remove the posting from justacitizen.com, since it is rather silly & we have gotten some inquiries as to why it is there. Lmedmonds 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I figure I might as well join the fun here. Under the "Early life and education" section it states, "The daughter of an Azerbaijani doctor..." Is this her father or her mother? If father, then her mother is a Turk? Or vice versa? Does that mean she is Azerbaijani-Turkish-American? If so, then we need to update her "ethnogeographic identity." Also, it states that she is fluent in "Azeri." As far as I can tell, looking through Wiki, there is no such specific language. Is this referring to the "Azerbaijani" language or the "Old Azari" language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeri_language)? Of course, the entire section is unsourced, so maybe none of this is accurate. Mr. Edmunds, perhaps you can shed some light on all of this? Or maybe somebody has a decent source... Tubbyty (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Vanity Fair article, which was already cited for other details, has all of the info for the "Early life and education" section, except the 1988 date for her arrival in the USA (which isn't really contentious), and the 1996 date for her U.S. citizenship (for which we should get a source, I agree). According to the article, her father is the doctor, and she is fluent in Azerbaijani (which the Azerbaijani language article says is also known as Azeri). I corrected and added more links to the Vanity Fair article in the paragraph as needed. You could have easily done this yourself. —mjb (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, mjb, for adding the references - much better now. However, I have removed "Azerbaijani doctor" and left only "doctor" because the Vanity Fair article as cited does not state the ethnicity/citizenship of her father. I also thank you for appointing me the official "Reference Fixer" for all things Wiki.  Although I still believe the author should be responsible for citations, I will wield my new power with care.Tubbyty (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, folks: often an easier way to do this when there is a site involved is for someone to email _to_ an address posted on that site, and have a response come back including the email initially sent and saying "yes, such-and-such on Wikipedia is me." - 69.17.114.183 (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How is she from Turkey?
When you say she is a "Turkish-American" you're trying to imply that she is from Turkey. How is she from Turkey, seriously? She's an Iranian-Azeri, making her an Iranian-American. Just because she lived in Turkey, doesn't mean that she is Turkish. And just because she's an Azeri doesn't mean that she is Turkish either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You should read above where her husband mentions her Turkish birth certificate. I know, reading the related discussion, which has been here since early 2007 can be a pain, but it's worth it. Erasedgod (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reminder about unsourced statements
WP:BLP Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This entire article could be removed as worthless if all the controversial information that is missing references was removed as very little other than her name and DOB would remain. Even whole sections referring exclusively to the content of a single public document have no source for that document. Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attriti0n (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2007


 * Your citation-needed template refs and inline comments are appreciated, and I especially appreciate the constructive approach you've taken, rather than the aggressive and counterproductive removal of potentially contentious material as some would advocate. I wrote a bit about this disturbing trend on my user page, if you're so inclined; it's distressing, especially in the non-BLP space, that the relatively recent attention to such matters is often addressed in a bureaucratic manner, without regard for prior consensus about what topics are covered and what phrasing was worked out to stabilize the article. Such hit-and-run deletionists consider themselves heroes, but they leave behind a trail of article volatility unless they get someone to continue the aggressive enforcement. So thank you for not being one of those people.


 * Anyway, I digress. You're right, we do need to improve the detail and precision of the existing citations, and we need to add some new ones, but I think you exaggerate the depth of the problems. For example, the first one of your complaints that I looked at was for a somewhat vaguely cited but nevertheless verifiable and completely accurate quote that you didn't like just because it was taken from a large PDF. I've beefed it up with page numbers, more quotes, an HTML link, and other details, but it was verifiable as it was, which doesn't bode well for your other citation requests.


 * I will do what I can, but I could use some help from other folks who've taken an interest in this article. See Citation templates as well as the more robust examples I've provided in the article already. Thanks! —mjb 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That said, it's been another 6 months and there are still large, uncited portions of the "Litigation" section. - 69.17.114.183 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

for people with an eye on the article
Betcha $5 that not only will one of the networks take up Sibel on her dare, but we'll get a barrage of traffic related to it when it happens. q.v. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5197 ~Kylu ( u | t )  00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

UK Sunday Times interesting comments regarding 9/11
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

“I cannot discuss the details considering the gag orders,” she said, “but I reported all these activities to the US Congress, the inspector general of the justice department and the 9/11 commission. I told them all about what was contained in this case file number, which the FBI is now denying exists.

“This gag was invoked not to protect sensitive diplomatic relations but criminal activities involving US officials who were endangering US national security.”

Is that any better?


 * Interesting, indeed, though I don't see a 9/11 connection. This article is now in the external links as For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets, but someone should really follow it up. She has now made some much more concrete public allegations, and the article should incorporate these. Sorry I don't have time right now to work on this myself, but this seems to be an article with several active editors. - Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Another, London Times 20th Jan 08


 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece
 * "FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft"... The FBI has been accused of covering up a file detailing government dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets


 * London Times 27th Jan 08
 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece
 * Tip-off thwarted nuclear spy ring probe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New revelations
To add to article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece. Badagnani (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

UK press questioning silence of US press
"US journalists ignore Sunday Times scoop on FBI nuclear scandal" from a Guardian columnist. MilesAgain (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nukes for Turkey
I found the following extremely interesting:

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:57:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: .... White House now wants Congress to approve sales of nuclear technology to Turkey

Warning! This is a fairly long post that could be regarded by some as inflammatory and blatantly political. It is. It is also however, directly related to issues of nuclear non-proliferation and security against radiological terrorism - both topics which have been discussed extensively on this list. All of the topics touched on in this post can be further researched on the internet so I have left out most of the background material in the interest of brevity. Those wanting more information and references can find them very easily. I freely admit the fact of my own fallability and that of my sources. Where I am wrong, please have the courtesy to correct me.

*[Message to the Congress of the United States http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080123-6.html]

Comments: Consider the following:

1) "The Agreement was signed on July 26, 2000, and President Clinton ... U.S. agencies received information that called into question the conclusions that had been drawn in the required NPAS and the original classified annex, specifically, information implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation."

Note during this time frame, the FBI was investigating the American Turkish Council (ATC) and other individuals and companies in regard to the alleged smuggling of nuclear technology. Sibel Edmonds has claimed that she was hired to translate some of the wire taps from this investigation and that they implicated high US officials, including members of congress in what would appear to be acts of treason. Since testifying before Congress and the 9-11 Commission, she has been under a "State Secrets Privilege" gag order. Both Congress and the FBI IG's office have stated that Edmonds claims are credible.

On the ATC, (from Wikipedia): "According to its 2005 annual report, current American-Turkish Council (ATC) board members include:
 * Brent Scowcroft, the board chairman and former national security adviser for George H. W. Bush
 * George Perlman of Lockheed Martin
 * Elizabeth Avery of Pepsico
 * Ozer Baysal of Pfizer
 * Andy Button of Boeing
 * Richard K. Douglas of General Electric
 * Sherry Grandjean of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
 * John R. Miller of Raytheon
 * Selig A. Taubenblatt of Bechtel

ATC's advisory board also includes representatives of a number of high- powered defense, pharmaceutical, consulting, and technology firms, including General Atomics, BAE Systems, Motorola, and the Cohen Group (Marc Grossman's current employer. cjb) Daniel Pipes is a former ATC board member.

Growing media scrutiny of the ATC is a result of allegations made by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds regarding suspect activities of council members in an article in the September 2005 Vanity Fair. The ATC is where former Ambassador Joseph Wilson met his future wife and CIA operative, Valerie Plame, leading some to speculate Plame's CIA front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, was monitoring the same alleged nuclear trafficking of the ATC as Sibel Edmonds."

2) "My Administration has completed the NPAS review as well as an evaluation of actions taken by the Turkish government to address the proliferation activities of certain Turkish entities (once officials of the U.S. Government brought them to the Turkish government's attention)."

Considering this administration's connections with many of the ATC board members, and its role in the outing of Valerie Plame and the fictitious front company she worked for, Brewster-Jennings, what value is its assertion that Turkey's corrective actions have been adequate to ensure protection of US nuclear secrets?

3) "the members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are confident that the pertinent issues have been sufficiently resolved and that there is a sufficient basis ... to proceed with congressional review of the Agreement and, if legislation is not enacted to disapprove it, to bring the Agreement into force."

One need only review the Commission's "Increased Controls" (ICs) requirements for materials licensees, and other actions regarding security of by-product material to realize that their confidence that the "pertinent issues have been sufficiently resolved" should inspire none in the rest of us. Remember, four of the five commissioners were formerly congressional aides, the other a former DOD official.

4) Congress must act in order to stop this agreement from taking effect. Hopefully there are enough members uncompromised by the ATC-AIPAC-BCCI- Edmonds-Plame scandals (yes, they are all connected!) to prevent rewarding the illegal proliferation of nuclear secrets by legitimizing it.

END OF POST

MilesAgain (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the link does not work: you cannot get into the 'briefing room' documents except through the 'front door', and need to re-specify the search criteria for the document you want. It then politely replies - nothing found. Attempting to use Google (advanced) to search the site is fruitless. Our institutions are failing us. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

The text you post refers to her 'testimony before the 9-11 commission". Yet in her Ohio Election deposition, she recounts an occasion when she was prevented from so testifying. When did she (get to) testify? ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Nothing mentioned on AIPAC case?
Why is their nothing in this article mentioning AIPAC case? See here: "Sibel Edmonds Case: the untellable story of AIPAC" (watch the videos) and here: "Found in Translation" 86.133.26.209 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Litigation
I've removed a series of unsourced since 2007 allegations under litigation. Please do not add these back without proper sourcing. User:Ed Wood& (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple Google searches quickly revealed PDFs of court documents as well as mainstream news reports. Had you done the searches yourself, perhaps you would have concluded that the claims weren't controversial, so the citation-needed tags were sufficient to remain in place, being as harmless in 2009 as they were in 2007. The absence of full citations was a minor technicality (for these claims; I wouldn't say the same about the ones attributed to blogs), and it was a situaiton which would eventually be remedied. In the meantime, readers were sufficiently warned that they'd need to do their own verification. But by wholly deleting material that wasn't controversial, you risked losing the information altogether; what motivation would there have been to cite the sources if the deletion hadn't been noticed?
 * Deletions which are motivated more by personal bureaucratic tendencies than by genuine skepticism are a waste of everyone's time, and are especially irritating when they're done so sloppily as to leave dependencies in the remaining content. I've gone ahead and invested several hours crafting the requisite ref tags in order to restore the deleted content with some citations. I did leave out one relatively minor claim (re: a Dec. 11, 2003 Ashcroft action to dismiss the class action suit) which I couldn't easily find a reference for. Any help with that appreciated. Also, this article would really benefit from a timeline. —mjb (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're unaware of the BLP complicagtions or the simple fact that many of these allegations are extremely controversial and require better sourcing? The citation requests were in place for two years - my sources didn't turn up anything, so I removed them, as we should with any controversial unsourced material. User:Ed Wood& (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your sources apparently didn't include basic Google searches which turn up credible sources in the first page of results. "Edmonds was barred from testifying in the 9/11 class action suit" was not a controversial claim about Edmonds herself; it's just a statement that a citation was requested for. Likewise "her own suit was dismissed on state secrets grounds" wasn't a shocking claim after it had already been established with cited sources that the state secrets privilege had been invoked against her. mjb (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed from "Allegations" paragraph the (BOX:unclear or questionable)
These questions: (did she make these allegations before or after she was fired? Were they part of why she was fired?) have been answered in the last sentence of the prior paragraph. I assume that the answers were added in response to the warning box, but the person did not remove the box. ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Why are these relevant to the article, though? User:Ed Wood& (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean: "Why is it relevant to the article whether she made the allegations before or after she was fired?". If that was your question, one can imagine situations where the answer might affect her credibility, however as the article now stands, I don't think that the question comes up.
 * As to the question: "Why is it relevant to the article whether they were part of why she was fired", I think clearly has a bearing on the issue of criminal cover-up, and I don't understand how you could be asking that. Maybe I just don't understand what you are asking. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Removed [citation needed]
"she claims that managers retaliated against her.[citation needed]" If the question is who it was who retaliated, viz. not her managers, then [citation needed] could be restored to the text, but I suggest it be put next to the word "managers", for clarity. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC))
 * The fact that she was fired, and that a subsequent investigation reported that her firing was probably based primarily on her warnings, substantiates her statement that her firing was a "reaction" to her warnings.
 * The fact that the investigation also states that her warnings were not properly investigated demonstrates that the "reaction" was premature and probably improper. This is enough to support her characterization of the reaction as "retaliation".
 * The issue may actually just be that we need to point to where she explicitly made the claim that managers retaliated against her (that it was a conclusion by the OIG doesn't tell us whether & where she said it). In fact, although that whole paragraph is basically just summarizing material from later in the article, it ultimately will require a citation on every sentence to insulate against further tagging and/or deletion. It may just be a matter of referencing citing specific statements in the OIG's unclassified report. —mjb (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. She brought a lawsuit alleging that. Should not be hard to find a reference. Will do.( Martin | talk • contribs 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

I made a citation to the DC Appeals in which she presents her version of the events. I suppose that one could ask whether there is a reference to be found to this position prior to her firing, as a strict reading of the sentence might require. I don't think that that is the significant question in her case, unless one's thought is that her position was constructed after the firing as a way to get back pay or something. A possibility, I suppose. If that is the issue, possibly I could look again. But it won't be as nice as a court document. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

Or else, just switch the order of the two sentences. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)) Switched the order of the two sentences. It is probably logically better that way anyway... ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the removal of the characterization of the allegations
The sentence

Edmonds has made a series of allegations regarding the incompetent and possibly subversive operation of the FBI translation unit was changed to Edmonds has made a series of allegations with the reasoning that one should not assert either the truth or the falsity of the allegations. (per comment in History)

Would it be better to use the word 'alleged' rather than 'possibly'? Is that the problem? The allegations are there. They seem to fall into the two classes: ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC))
 * incompetence (the guantanimo bay translator, ignoring the 9-11 warnings)
 * cover-up of foreign intelligence operations (the rest)


 * The problem was just that you mixed up the topic of the allegations – the competence and integrity of the FBI translation unit – with the allegations themselves – that the unit was incompetent and 'possibly subversive' (which is also a term I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking borders on hyperbolic speculation or editorial analysis, however plausible it may be). So instead of saying she made allegations regarding the incompetent and possibly subversive operation of the FBI translation unit it would be better to say regarding the competence and integrity of the FBI translation unit or maybe regarding the competence and integrity of various colleagues in the FBI translation unit. However, none of these phrases are ideal because her allegations over time seem to have broader scope than just what went on in the FBI translation unit. It seems sufficient to just say she made a number of allegations, and then to tersely list what they are, but if you want to keep working on a better summary, go ahead. —mjb (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't think that the allegations are describing subversion? - unauthorized cooperation by US government officials with nuclear proliferation? The allegation that Marc Grossman outed Brewster Jennings & Associates to Turkish covert agents to protect nuclear proliferation is a far worse charge than the allegation that Rove outed Plame to Novak to protect the "Yellow Cake" claim. The first is Sibel's allegation.


 * Yes, her allegations do look beyond the action of the translation unit - I do agree with that - but it seems to me cogent to characterize her complaints as faults with the translation unit management - that the management covered these things up, denied them, and went out of their way to arrange things so that these allegations would not be investigated. And investigating all the other things, without investigating the translation unit, seems short-sighted.


 * I also, of course, bristle at the suggestion that I "mix up" things. I don't see why you say the topic might be the unit's competence, but object to the idea that the topic might be the unit's incompetence. And one wants a parallel structure. If one grouping of allegations relating to incompetence is called "competence", is the other group related to subversion to be called "patriotism"? Oh, I see, competence and integrity. Yes that would work.


 * The idea of classifying, or grouping was intended as a time saver for people in a hurry - like putting the allegations into a bulleted list. I didn't mean to do anything other than to arrange Sibel's thoughts.( Martin | talk • contribs 07:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm sure no offense was meant by the term "mix up," so I suggest we leave that aside for the sake of a calm discussion on how the article can be improved. That said, I think mjb's point is valid.  While one might allege that a person or entity is incompetent, the specific allegations made concern the competence (not the alleged incompetence) of that person or entity.  --Onlyemarie (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference: Here is an article where the writer chose to characterize her claims (plural) as about incompetence. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Then that article was poorly edited. She alleged incompetence, she made allegations of incompetence, she made allegations that there was incompetence, but she made allegations regarding or about competence. If you disagree, appeal to a copy editor in journalism, academia, or other publishing. Don't point to a second wrong and declare it makes both right. —mjb (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm open. Do you have a reference to the principle you refer to, or ... what's it called? ( Martin | talk • contribs 05:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC))


 * I just ran across a comment by Sibel regarding "subversive": . ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Reminder - the discussion page is available for your thoughts
The 'summary of changes' field helps when one is reviewing history, to find when something changed. An editor may, of course, also note on the discussion page, what thinking, or criticism, or suggestion, motivates the change, so that others can either agree and cooperate, or be more to the point if they have a different thought. Deletion of paragraphs, without discussion, seems abrupt to me, especially on this topic of substantial national interest. I am sure you agree. :-) ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Semi-protected per WP:BLP
Bradblog.com is not a reliable source for the material it supported. I have semi-protected the page to prevent further violations of our policy on biographies of living people. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the video of the deposition cannot be referred to because the video is hosted on bradblog? Do you think the video or the transcript has been tampered with, possibly? This is an article on Sibel Edmonds. To not allow the video, taped under oath, statements that she makes to be summarized on this page, with references to the original source, is strange to me. Why allow newspaper reports of her statements to be used as a source, and not allow her own words to be used? I see that the video is hosted on VIMEO also with a BradBlog watermark. Is this a preferable source? Please explain. ( Martin | talk • contribs 05:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC))
 * BradBlog is not a reliable source, period. By re-adding those, you risk protection again.  Beyond that, why are the allegations relevant? User:Ed Wood& (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the reasons:
 * I requested a review of the protection, and the protection was removed.
 * The document referenced is a legal deposition, taken under oath, and the associated transcript. The video is clearly Sibel Edmonds herself. The claim that the "Brad Blog is not reliable" does not apply in this case.
 * The allegations are relevant because the article on Sible is in the Whistleblower category. All articles in this category contain allegations.
 * That's the best I can do. Check with others if you have a question.( Martin | talk • contribs 05:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

Update: Unprotected Sibel Edmonds: unprotected per WP:RFPP, poor explanation of protection given.

Timeline of allegations
The bulk of the article deals with the fallout from allegations Edmonds made in the early 2000s; this is what she's notable for. The BradBlog-hosted 'deposition' is a very new set of statements (2009). Now that we have a summary of her allegations, there's the question of when she made each one, including any changes in the amount of information she has revealed over time. If anything about her recent statements is to remain in the article, then it needs to be made more clear exactly when she first revealed each detail of each allegation. Thanks. —mjb (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look at all the references in the article and try to sort that out. I am thinking to try a few ways on my talk page, and see which anyone if any people like. Probably take a few days - Sept 13th? Of course the reason her allegations have come out spread out in time, I think, is that she has been so limited in what she was allowed to say, and only now, after Bush has gone, was she allowed to testify under oath without the state secrets objection being raised.( Martin | talk • contribs 03:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

I am surprised by your thoughts above, among which are Am I characterizing your thoughts accurately? ( Martin | talk • contribs 07:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
 * 1) putting the word deposition in quotes - do you believe that it was something other than a deposition in the course of an investigation by the Ohio Elections Commission?
 * 2) that the statements in the deposition are 'very new' and are something other than a fuller exposition of some material that has been gagged in the past
 * 3) that you question the inclusion of these allegations, made under oath, on the grounds that they are not timely
 * 4) that material relating to a whistleblower case should be truncated prior to the resolution of the controversy


 * Some sorta, some not at all.
 * Deposition has a specific meaning, and to use that term implies certain procedures were followed and that it was part of the process of the court and/or lawyers for each side obtaining statements from people whose voices are sought for use in a civil or criminal case. Most depositions aren't broadcast or accompanied by press conferences, and they're usually limited in their scope, focusing on a specific issue. So I feel to some extent, Edmonds' statement wasn't purely a deposition for Schmidt v. Krikorian; it was partially a publicity stunt to publicly make a number of allegations and advance her own cause. However, after searching for some legitimate news sources and finding two (here and here—please make sure they are used in the article!), I personally don't really doubt that it's a real deposition, so I will stop putting deposition in quotes when I refer to it.
 * She made statements in the deposition, and she made statements before the deposition. There's overlap between them, surely, but we mustn't be caught conflating the allegations she made in '02 (which we only have cursory details of, obviously) with those she made on 60 Minutes and those she made in Vanity Fair and those she made on film and those she made in her recent deposition (and so on). For example, we can't imply that what she said in the deposition is exactly what she was gagged for. So it's not too much to ask that when characterizing the allegations, we be very clear about when she said what. I have no malice here; rather I'm just holding the article to a high standard.
 * Your remaining questions don't characterize my thoughts or motivation accurately. I only want the article to stick to relatively dry reporting of events and publications, and to avoid any speculation, sensationalism, hyperbole, or any content which suggests unproven aspects of Edmonds' allegations are interpreted as fact. Asking for a timeline to improve the article's clarity is one way to help accomplish that. Also note: a timeline is a type of article containing, as one would expect, a bulleted list of events (e.g., Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama) but it can also be a graphical element you can put in pages (e.g., Template:Timeline of the Roman Empire) using : see WP:TIMELINE and Help:EasyTimeline_syntax. —mjb (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "is exactly what she was gagged for". I agree. You can see some questions were withdrawn, some things left unsaid.
 * Re "please make sure they are used in the article" Not my job - don't know how else to say it.
 * Re "suggests unproven aspects of Edmonds' allegations are interpreted as fact" Yes, I agree. The charges are scary, and as yet, essentially unconfirmed. Actually that is the part that I think is more important than the timing. That is, it is not so important when she first charged that the Brewster-Jennings cover was blown, but is it true, by whom, and why. Gak. By the way, I read just today that Hamid Karzai's brother is involved in the heroin trade. Hamid denies it saying that his brother is in transportation. Heroin connection in NYTimes. (not the article I was looking for, but close enough.)
 * Re "Most depositions aren't broadcast or accompanied by press conferences" The MSM didn't cover it. She didn't call a press conference. But even if she had, so what? Her depostion was taped and the tape made available to the parties to the litigation, and that is where the tape came from. Did you see it broadcast?
 * Re "it was partially a publicity stunt" Derrogatory term, stunt, but of course she feels that allegations of criminality at the highest levels deserve publicity. I am sure you agree, if they prove to be true.

( Martin | talk • contribs 08:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Timeline
Here is a timeline from 2005 on the ACLU site, and you can see how many of the events in the story so far have been to suppress her allegations. It would be ironic if Wikipedia decided to participate in this suppression. ( Martin | talk • contribs 08:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
 * This is a good start. It's the kind of thing I'd like to see in this article. —mjb (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My computer has crashed, so I am out of business for a bit. ( Martin | talk • contribs 10:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

New Giraldi articles
Couple new Philip Giraldi articles have more info on what she has revealed, in case anyone wants to add: antiwar.com and [http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/ Am. Conservative]. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegations make her notable
Obviously it is the allegations Edmonds has made that make her notable. The section could make that a bit clearer including with more refs from the various high level WP:RS that have covered her story. I'll get around to it unless someone else does first. So don't go removing it :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So we should instead note that she's been making various allegations regarding the FBI and national security in another section, as opposed to having what amount to various BLP violations in the text, right? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can substantiate your claim of "BLP violation", or biography of living person violation. That would amount to saying that a quotation, substantiated by a link to a video and a transcript of a sworn statement by that person, is derogatory of that living person. It makes no sense. Can you find someone else who agrees with you possibly who can explain it? And I don't see how spreading the statements around in the article would address the "BLP problem" you find. (76.180.164.161 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC))
 * [I have another computer now, but complications have come up, as happens. [( Martin | talk • contribs 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC))]
 * It's because she's making unsourced, dubious allegations about people. We can't have that.  I'm pretty sure they should be remved at this point Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be easier if you discussed particular allegations so we could see how sources treat those allegations. Unomi (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Descent
Ethnic categories are placed based on the person's origin regardless of whether s/he identifies him/herself as such or is it just one of her parents who does. Catherine Zeta-Jones' mother was Irish and her father Welsh; both 'Irish' and 'Welsh' are listed as her origin in the article about her. Parishan (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who exactly says that she's an Azerbaijani? Article itself calls her a Turkish-American. Urvakan 6/22/10

From http://www.pageonelit.com/interviews/KGMowla.html "He went to present Bangladesh in 1964 and became Pakistani. Khondakar became Bangladeshi in 1971. Since June 1993 Khondakar says he is "American by heart. So imagine that I was born as British Indian, than in 1947 India, in 1964 Pakistani and in 1971 Bangladesh and now I think myself as American. "

Someone who changes his identity like a used gum is not reliable source in someone elses identity. I'm not even going to comment on the garbage 9/11 conspiracy link you added. Urvakan 7/06/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urvakan (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He doesn't "change" his ethnicity. He was British at first because his birthplace, Bengalia, was under British control at the time of his birth and until 1947, when Pakistan (originally including East Bengalia) became independent and, naturally, he automatically acquired Pakistani citizenship, which changed to Bangladeshi in 1971, because Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in that year and became independent. Later Khondakar moved to the United States and acquired American citizenship through naturalisation. Is this so difficult to process? Parishan (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we even care? Is there a reason why we need the 4 word section about her father at all? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is whether or not to include Category:American people of Azerbaijani descent, so, yes, we do. Parishan (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeline Issue

 * The account centered around her post-9/11 role as translator of a pre-9/11 interview during which an informant had told the FBI agents:
 * Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this.
 * The agents, along with Edmonds, reported this information internally at the FBI but, according to Edmonds, no one at the bureau ever asked for follow-ups or further information prior to 9/11.

A couple of the statements in this section appear to be at odds with each other. This statement: "The account centered around her post-9/11 role as translator of a pre-9/11 interview during which an informant had told the FBI agents" appears to indicate she is performing a translation of a pre 9/11 interview post 9/11. This statement "The agents, along with Edmonds, reported this information internally at the FBI but, according to Edmonds, no one at the bureau ever asked for follow-ups or further information prior to 9/11", then appears to suggest that she was translating this prior to 9/11. The sited source indicates that she is translating this interview pre-9/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjohnson06 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Most gagged person according to ACLU?
The link is to a Huff Post article, which itself links to "The American Conservative" - there is no link to the ACLU. A search of the ACLU website for "Sibel Edmonds gagged" finds 4 documents - https://www.aclu.org/search/sibel%20edmonds%20gagged - none of which include the claim.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the ACLU didn't publish that information on their website. I do not see how this makes the cited content dubious. VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source from the ACLU for the claim then it certainly would not be dubious. However the referenced sources do not include any link to anything from the ACLU.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is hard to verify if the ACLU ever made this claim, it could have been a remark made to a reporter. The sentence could explicitly say:
 * The American Conservative claimed the ACLU described Edmonds as "the most gagged person in American history".
 * However, it would be better to mention when and how Edmonds has been gagged, if the sources are available.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * the two thoughts do not follow. Why does the ACLU not having the quote currently on their website make the quote, reported elsewhere, dubious? Can you point to a guideline or policy that requires sources to be available on the web, or that indicates a preference for primary vs secondary sourcing? VQuakr (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * this is explained in more detail in the body of the article. The lede is intended to be a summary. VQuakr (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The main article doesn't use the term gagged, or mention her being 'the most gagged'. It says her testimony and other documents have been classified 'top secret' and that a story was dropped due to pressure. I think the main article could be made clearer. Maybe the lede could say she has been effectively gagged by removal of documents from the public domain? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @VQuakr - I have not found an original source for the quote anywhere - not just on the ACLU website.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This article looks like an official statement of FBI. Why are we accusing her with the govermental issues. She is a well known author and provided essential information. Article presents her as a traitor and the first paragraph( especially gagged person thing) is mocking her. Besides, ACLU doesn't say anything about gagging. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

References for 'Kill the Messager', how to describe content

 * In September 2006, a documentary about Edmonds case called Kill the Messenger (Une Femme à Abattre) premiered in France.[32] The film discusses the Edmonds case as well as offers interviews with various involved individuals. In the film Edmonds, former CIA agent Philip Giraldi, and others say that Israel was a significant actor in the illicit activities Edmonds discovered.

The second part of this paragraph is unreferenced, here are two potential refs: ref 1, ref 2. How best to describe what is said about Israel, 'illicit activities' is vague. Edmonds purports to have insight into US, Israeli, Turkish relations. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps just remove the part about Israel altogether because the article isnt about Israel, and replace the content with elaboration of what the crimes were. Its current state, in a section which repeatedly mentions 9/11 makes it too easy to suggest a 9/11 conspiracy by Israel.Batvette (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Sibel Edmonds. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0404/043004lb.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Corbett Report
I'd like to see reference to Sibel Edmonds' frequent appearances on the Corbett Report with James Corbett (journalist), as well as content about Newsbud, the alt media project she is founding. I tried to add material that could have been improved but it was simply deleted. I'd also like to see a Wikipedia page about the Corbett Report and or James Corbett (journalist). After over a decade I tried to create my first page and it was deleted before I was finished. I feel his material and clear contextualization is too important to be ignored even if I am not. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please give me feed back and help me finish this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Corbett_(journalist) JasonCarswell (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

NewsBud
I'm surprised that NewsBud has not been mentioned. I'd be happy to help write/research/edit/etc but need guidance as with The Corbett Report. JasonCarswell (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I Re-Organized This Talk Page A Bit
Because this page seemed long and confusing I started reorganizing a bit. I made the subject titles more consistent and clumped some of the 9/11 and Turkey paragraphs together without editing any content. Then I realized that maybe I shouldn't. I don't know if that was good or not. I thought it was helpful but I don't know if it has to be chronological or something. I hope someone might give me a word to let my OCD organize Talk Pages or not. Thanks in advance. JasonCarswell (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A proposed change: fixing a broken link in citations
Information to be added or removed: Please replace the link that is currently featured in citation #8 with this new link: https://www.kkc.com/whistleblowers/?id=45.

Explanation of issue: The current link that citation 8 links to is broken— I'd like to change this link to the correct bio page on the same website as before. References supporting change: The current link in citation 8, https://www.kkc.com/404, leads to a 404 Page Not Found page. Instead, I'd like this citation to link to https://www.kkc.com/whistleblowers/?id=45, which I believe is the intended link to Ms. Edmonds' bio page on the same website as the existing link. The only difference between the links is that the old link is broken and the link I'm proposing to swap in is not.

.

I would also like to disclose that I am a paid editor— this information is included in my user page, user talk page, and in the Connected Contributor template that I used in conjunction with the Requested Edit template. Please let me know if there’s anything I need to change. Thanks! Sa 3003 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)