Talk:Vincent Cannistraro/Archive 2

Copy edit
I've deleted the POV, the OR, and the unsourced claims, in accordance with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. If any of the claims are added again, every edit must be carefully sourced and must be from a reliable source who was speaking about Cannistraro directly. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (copied from SV's talk page) Why have you deleted half the bio? What are you talking about "unsource claims" every claim has a source and every footnote has the full quote right there for you to read. Cannistraro himself refused to enter into any mediation, thereby acknowledging that what I was writing was factually correct. I've been having a huge edit war with him and finally I win, and now suddenly you're attacking my claims too. Why? What have I done to deserve this?  Ryan4  Talk 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ryan, the article was POV and full of original research i.e. editors' opinions of what these various operations were and who was in charge. Even though you had sourced some of it, the sources were not always writing in relation to Cannistraro, and you were filling in the gaps with what looked like guesswork. A lot has been written about him by reputable writers, so it should be easy enough to construct a decent, well-sourced bio. Just make sure you stick to excellent sources (no websites of uncertain origin), source every edit, make sure the sources are writing about Cannistraro specifically, and don't elaborate on what they say. Also, the sources need to be cited properly: see WP:CITE. This article has to be written in accordance with Biographies of living persons, as well as NOR and V. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ryan, I've put a basic biography in place. If you want to add a criticism or controversy section, that's fine, but please make sure that every edit is sourced, that the sources are specifically writing about Cannistraro (in other words, no putting two and two together), and please use only mainstream sources. Then there should be no problems. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't just stick that old material back in; if it had been okay, I wouldn't have deleted it. You're not using the sources properly. Hang on and I'll write up examples. SlimVirgin (talk)  18:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

 * Example 1: Cannistraro, while at the CIA and the NSC, was involved with paramilitary operations. In particular, those which trained ex-Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza's right-wing forces - the Contras - to overthrow the democratically elected leftist Sandinista government [6]."
 * Source: "Cannistraro, a former CIA agent in Central America, was assigned last summer to work with North on Contra affairs, and in his role of coordinating intelligence programs throughout the administration, he headed several inter-agency meetings on aid for the rebels." -From United Press International, June 15, 1987, Monday, AM cycle, Washington News, 519 words, Walsh draws testimony from NSC officials, By LORI SANTOS, WASHINGTON
 * Problem: The source does not say, so far as I can tell, that he trained Somoza's right-wing forces; or anything about how he trained them to overthrow a govt.
 * Example 2: "Cannistraro was even the alleged author of the infamous CIA manual for assasination [7]."
 * Source: "Following the 1984 flap over a CIA-sponsored manual for the contras that advocated assassination, North helped arrange a job on the NSC staff for Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA officer who had run the agency’s task force on the contras.” -From Tale of Two White House Aides: Confidence and Motivation; North Viewed as a Can-Do Marine Who Went Too Far in Zealousness, The Washington Post, November 30, 1986, Sunday, Final Edition Correction Appended, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 2694 words, David Ignatius, Washington Post Staff Writer, FOREIGN NEWS, NATIONAL NEWS, BIOGRAPHY
 * Problem: Where does the source say that C was the alleged author? Why use the word "even"? Who says the manual is "infamous"?
 * Example 3: "The operation, during which terrorists slaughtered innocent men, women and children, became part of the infamous Iran-Contra scandal. Deemed illegal in 1984, the operation, rather than actually being halted, was simply transferred by Reagan to the NSC, of which Cannistraro was then promptly made Director [8]."
 * Source: Kornbluh, P., and M. Byrne. 1993. The Iran-Contra Scandal: The declassified history. New York: The New Press. (p.xviii): President Reagan “transferred the Contra program from the CIA to the NSC after congressional authorization for the CIA’s Contra program expired in mid 1984.”
 * Problem: Slaughtered? Come on. Plus, where does this source mention Cannistraro? The sources must be about him, not about issues you believe he was involved in.

Please don't re-add this material unless it's written and sourced properly. The Foundation takes WP:BLP very seriously, for obvious reasons. Also, please write up the citations in accordance with our house style. They look as though you're cutting and pasting them from some library service. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Problem 1: Then how about, "Cannistraro was involved at a high level with intelligence gathering relating to the Contras"

Problem 2: Why would Cannistraro be looking for a new job and need help from someone high up to get that job if there were a 'flap' over a manual advocating assasination? Obviously because Cannistraro wrote it, duh. And I was under the impression that many people who know about the Contra scandal know about the CIA manual that was given to the Contra forces with all kinds of terrorism techniques - it's a very famous part of the scandal.

Problem 3: The source does not need to mention Cannistraro. The program was trasferred by Reagan, and we already know that in that same year Cannistraro was made Director of Intelligence. And yes slaughtered. These people ripped open the wombs of pregnant women with knives. This is all documented. They were a force of right-wing terrorists of the highest order. HENCE THE HUGE SCANDAL ABOUT IT ALL OVER THE NEWS. Ryan4 Talk 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ryan, SlimVirgin has asked me to look into this. I've been reading the issues on the Talk: page, and it seems to me that there is a very serious problem with original research here.  I say "very serious" because original research is a problem at the best of times, but when it is done regarding living people, and particularly when it is defamatory, the Foundation (and Jimmy Wales) take an extremely dim view of it.  I've seen Jimbo delete entire articles when they contained content like this.
 * Now, regarding the actual content, the key here is that you must have reliable sources which directly make the claims made here. So, if you have a reliable source that says "Cannistraro was involved at a high level with intelligence gathering relating to the Contras" then bring it forward; otherwise, it can't go in.  Regarding the manual, you are again forwarding the novel thesis that Cannistraro wrote the manual.  If there is a reliable source which makes that claim, bring it forward; otherwise, it too is forbidden.  Similarly, with the third item, the source, in fact, must mention Cannistraro; otherwise you are again advancing a novel thesis regarding Cannistraro's involvement.  And the fact that horrible things were done makes if even more important that we have reliable sources which directly tie Cannistraro to this.  Did any of those news stories you describe specifically mention Cannistraro?  If they did, then quote them.  If not, then there is probably a very good reason they didn't, and those reasons apply to Wikipedia as well. I cannot emphasize again how seriously Jimmy and the Foundation take these matters. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Torture ban letter
I've removed the following from the article because I can't find a source for it. I'll keep on looking. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "He was a charter signer of a letter to President Bush arguing for the enactment of a ban on torture by American officials."

Reworded sentences
I have now added the sentences back into the bio, under "Professional Life". They are almost exact paraphrases of the original text from the sources. One from the Washington Post, the other from UPI. Is this now ok? Ryan4 Talk 00:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ryan, you can't write "following the 1984 flap." Would you please allow me some time to read the sources and then, if appropriate, I'll re-add the material, but written in accordance with our policies? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I LITERALLY COPIED AND PASTED THE EXACT WORDING OF THE ARTICLE - THE PHRASE "FLAP" WAS IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF. READ MY QUOTES FROM BEFORE - I HAVE LAYED THEM OUT THOUSANDS OF TIMES. WHAT POLICY AM I BREAKING? WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?!?!?! Ryan4 Talk 04:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Cannistraro, a former CIA agent in Central America, was assigned last summer to work with North on Contra affairs, and in his role of coordinating intelligence programs throughout the administration, he headed several inter-agency meetings on aid for the rebels." -From United Press International, June 15, 1987, Monday, AM cycle, Washington News, 519 words, Walsh draws testimony from NSC officials, By LORI SANTOS, WASHINGTON "Following the 1984 flap over a CIA-sponsored manual for the contras that advocated assassination, North helped arrange a job on the NSC staff for Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA officer who had run the agency’s task force on the contras.” -From Tale of Two White House Aides: Confidence and Motivation; North Viewed as a Can-Do Marine Who Went Too Far in Zealousness, The Washington Post, November 30, 1986, Sunday, Final Edition Correction Appended, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 2694 words, David Ignatius, Washington Post Staff Writer, FOREIGN NEWS, NATIONAL NEWS, BIOGRAPHY

THOSE ARE THE SOURCES I USED. I LITERALLY ALMOST COPIED THEM WORD FOR WORD SINCE EVERYONE TOOK SUCH A GREAT EXCEPTION TO ME RESTATING WHAT THEY SAY IN MY OWN WORDS. NOW YOU SAY I CAN'T USE PHRASES THAT ARE IN THE ARTICLE, SO WHAT HAVE I DONE? Ryan4 Talk 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We have to write the article in a neutral, encylopedic tone. May I please have some time to read the material? Then I can add some edits based on it, if appropriate, and we can discuss them. Does that sound fair? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You've read them over. They were there right in front of you. It is a neutral tone. It is simply stating a fact. There was a controversy over the manual - that's all it said. Ryan4 Talk 04:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to read the whole article, and other articles about the manual, to make sure we get the wording and the sourcing absolutely right. We must edit in accordance with WP:BLP. The Foundation takes this very seriously. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ryan, can you show me exactly where you've taken the paragraph from that you added &mdash; the one beginning with: "Following the 1984 flap ..." You said it was from the Lori Santos/UPI and the David Ignatius/WPost stories, but I can't find them. Are they online somewhere? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Lexis-Nexis. Not that it should matter. You're saying I made them up now? Ryan4 Talk 14:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Deleted possible copyvio. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted possible copyvio. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What time would you like your breakfast, sir?  Ryan4  Talk 14:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting these, Ryan. The Ignatius story doesn't link C directly to the manual, and so we can't imply a link. It says only: "As the secret war in Nicaragua became more controversial, North became more determined to stay the course. He was intensely loyal to those whose careers had been harmed by the war. Following the 1984 flap over a CIA-sponsored manual for the contras that advocated assassination, North helped arrange a job on the NSC staff for Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA officer who had run the agency's task force on the contras. And he helped find a job for the former army officer who had written the assassination manual for the CIA and was then fired by the agency."


 * We therefore have no reason to use that quote of all quotes, but if we extend the article, we can use this article as a source that North helped C to join the NSC staff, and (using Santos) that, while C was there, he coordinated intelligence programs, though it seems a little odd to point that out given that he was Director of Intelligence Programs. He wouldn't have been much of a director if he hadn't done this, I assume.


 * As for breakfast, coffee, toast and orange juice would be perfect, whenever you're ready. And I'm not a sir. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Contras
"Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA officer who had run the agency's task force on the contras" This is what that means, ok. Cannistraro ran the contras. He ran the agency's entire intelligence and paramilitary program, or 'task force' on the Contras while he was in Central America, working for the CIA. Why are you having such trouble understanding this? After a manual advocating assasination that he was responsible for (because he was the head of the progam) surfaced, there was a scandal or 'flap' about it. Thus, he needed help from North, who was also involved in Contra affairs, to help him secure a job at the NSC. This was the same year that Congressional support for the Contras ended, and the same year that Pres. Reagan moved the Contra program from the CIA (where it was now illegal) to the NSC (where it wasn't). Thus, the program was moved, and Cannistraro was made director of intelligence at the NSC, meaning that he was running at least the intelligence side of the Contra operation from the NSC. This is what these quotes say. Anything more or less is to misunderstand their relevance. Why do you refuse to acknowledge their significance? Ryan4 Talk 19:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ryan, you're engaged in original research i.e. putting two and two together and coming up with your own figure:
 * That he ran the agency's task force does not mean that he ran the Contras. That is your opinion. If you have a source, please show us.
 * That a manual surfaced, and that he was the director at the time, does not mean that he had anything to do with the manual. Again, if you have a source that says explicitly that he did, please show us.
 * That North is reported to have helped him doesn't mean he "needed" the help. If you have a source saying he needed it, let us see it.
 * The "thus" he was made director of intelligence. Again, the "thus" is your opinion.
 * As Jayjg explained above, you must find reliable, mainstream sources that make each of these points explicitly. Please review WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for posting the articles. Now that I've read them, I've deleted them as I assume keeping the whole articles on talk would be a copyright violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Can I just go and add the sentences: (1) Cannistraro ran the agency's task force on the contras while at the CIA. [the first article] (2) When the Contra program was transferred by Reagan to the NSC, Cannistraro was made director of Intelligence. (3) While at the NSC, Cannistraro coordinated inter-agency meetings on aid for the Contras. [the second article].

these are all almost word for word what the articles you just read say. The point (2) is from:

Kornbluh, P., and M. Byrne. 1993. The Iran-Contra Scandal: The declassified history. New York: The New Press. (p.xviii): President Reagan “transferred the Contra program from the CIA to the NSC after congressional authorization for the CIA’s Contra program expired in mid 1984.”

and we already know that Cannistraro was made director of Intel at NSC from before, but just to make sure, it's from:

“Director of NSC Intelligence from 1984 to 1987, [Vincent] Cannistraro went on to serve as chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center...” -- From the PBS interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/

This way, we're just stating what has already been said, almost word for word, and we'll let the readers add two and two. Ok? Ryan4 Talk 20:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair enough. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You added something about the manual again, so I've deleted it (until you find a source that makes a very direct connection), and restored the references section. It's helpful to have a list of the references that have been used. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If this weren't such a serious issue, and if you hadn't already tried to add negative material, it might be acceptable to base a sentence on the source that you used. But with a serious allegation, and particularly where the subject himself has tried to intervene, we need to find a source who makes an explicit connection. If what you're implying is correct, there will be one out there somewhere. What is problematic about the source you wanted to use, is that the writer is speaking loosely, which is made clear by the fact that they later on go on to say that someone else wrote and took responsibility for the manual (and your omission of that part of the article, while including the parts that fitted what you were saying, gave a misleading impression). There might be something in the Tower Commission report you can use: again, sticking closely to what is actually said, including any relevant context. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU OMFG

Ther were 2 references sections that were exact duplicates of each other so I got rid of one YOU [personal attack removed]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryan4 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

References/notes
It's often helpful to maintain a References section as well as Notes, because when you end up with a lot of footnotes (especially where explanatory text has also been used), that section can look confusing and it's hard to see at a glance which sources have been used. Given that everything in this article will have to be very carefully sourced, we might end up with a long list. A separate References section listing full citations in alphabetical order is easy to read. This is how many academic publishing houses do it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionnable creditbility
One of you Wikimaniacs might be interested in this story from The Toronto Star by Andrew Mitrovica on Cannistro's questionable intelligence about the 9/11 hijackers' entering the US through Canada, which he willingly fed to the media and has never explained/recanted. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/623559. 99.226.245.189, 20:40 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a piece to the VC article and to Janet Napolitano's.---PJHaseldine (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

purely a question, if that is permitted
Is there reason to wonder if mining of Costa Rican harbors can be coupled in here? Have no references. But maybe someone can answer the question. Idealist707 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)