Talk:Wayne Madsen (journalist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Memory hole[edit]

The following has been deleted from the article, citing WP:RS:

His work, frequently citing unnamed intelligence agency insiders, includes the claim that the USS Cole bombing was carried out by an Israeli submarine firing a cruise missile.[1]

In October, 2004, he wrote an article which claimed that the Bush administration had envisioned a scenario that involves launching a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country. He also reported to supermarket tabloid The Globe that George W. Bush was having an affair with Condoleezza Rice and that Laura Bush had moved out of the White House.[1]

== See also ==


Nairobi and Bukavu documents

==References==

  1. ^ Clearing the Baffles for 911 by Wayne Madsen

==External links==

  • WayneMadsenReport.com Madsen's website
  • IMDb Madsen's appearance in 2004 film Bush Family Fortunes: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

Thanks Travb (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kook Saint[edit]

Madsen and his ramblings are a staple of the Conspiracy Fringe. Google him and "Jesuits".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.65.22 (talk • contribs)

Career[edit]

The reference that refers to him as a former Navy intelligence officer and NSA employee seems very weak. Are there any RS articles about him that confirm that ref? It has a feeling of puffery.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re the sourcing. Most of the mentions seem by-the-way and self-descriptions. It's also unclear exactly to what extent there ever can be government confirmation that someone worked for an intelligent agency.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PBS source looks adequate for "former Navy intelligence officer". / edg ☺ ☭ 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An intelligent agency? Never heard of one.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These assertions seem POV[edit]

"Widely quoted in Arab media"?
What is the point of this? I imagine anyone who suggests Israel is an imperialist state will be widely quoted in Arab media. Madsen seems to be widely-quoted in general.
"Considered a conspiracy theorist"
I feel like this has no business in the lede section, especially considering the source is a flippant comment by a conservative columnist.
"Assertions and conspiracy theories"?
This is an unreasonable section heading. In the swine flu YouTube for instance, Madsen was clearly stating what others had said, and the Wired article published that same week on the subject of new research says "Earlier reports called it a combination of pig, human and avian influenza strains.", which refers to multiple sources (one I can think of would be Indonesian Minister of Health Siti Fadillah Supari). Madsen in this case was repeating what multiple others were saying off the record, adding these ideas to a public debate that had not at the time reached a conclusion. Similar cases could be made for other Madsen investigations.

I feel like the current round of edits are a WP:POVPUSH to discredit Madsen as a crackpot. This is not the business of a Wikipedia article, especially a BLP. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative columnist. The Atlantic Monthly is not a conservative magazine. Madsen has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by writers at the Atlantic Monthly, CBS News and elsewhere (Democratic Underground). While most would say DU is not RS, the others are. That is fact, not POV. He seems like a crackpot beccause his quoted views read that way, not because anyone is misquoting him.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Nobody forced Madsen to claim that Israel wants to colonize Iraq and that Spitzer's brothel was a Mossad front It's not in the business of a Wikipedia article to pass off a fringe conspiracy theorist as a mainstream columnist.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You overlook that Madsen is an investigative journalist which means his own views are secondary to the investigations. He gets things wrong but he also gets some things right which can be said for any journalist in the investigative profession so should their articles also use conspiracy in section titles for their work? You can quote the claim in the body as critism but going overboard is POV. BTW, Sullivan has said that the Republican party is not conservative enough for him so where does "is not a conservative columnist" come from? Also the owner of the Atlantic Monthly is a self confessed neocon so that has to affect some of the magazines views. Wayne (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would the categorization under Category:Conspiracy theorists still be appropriate then? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My take is that claims of conspiracy over specific articles by a journalist is not enough. It's clear from his website that he is not pushing anything in particular and discredited claims he has made in the past have not been continued with as far as I can see (although as his website is a paysite I can't see everything). As a journalist it is his right to report on controversial topics no matter how much they look like conspiracy theories. The tip point is what he does with the story after it has been discredited. Wayne (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Madsen continues to claim Bush and Isreali involvement in 9/11. He asserted as late as last week Israeli involvement in 9/11, the London bombings, the Bali bombings and other "black flag" operations. He has continued to assert this year that the H1N1 virus was man-made, and in fact has followed-up by stating that it was made at University of Wisconsin Madison with US military involvement. Now he is returning to his great themes of powerful hidden "rings" of homosexuals and zionists dominating the government in his stories that Rahm Emanuel (in Madsens's words the Mossad ballerina) and Obama are homosexuals who frequent a gay bath house in Chicago. This stuff is not "investigative reporting" it is entirely unsourced conspiracy mongering. Capitalismojo (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Citation needed] for every periodical appearance[edit]

Where these mags have indexed back issues online, this can be confirmed with trivial Google searches. Whoever tagged up this section must have forgotten to make this effort.

I'm removing these, and adding Madsen's site bio as a source. Unless a sourced case can be made for this being fraudulent, it should be sufficient for the lede section. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, every single claim must be verified with a reliable source. Madsen is not a reliable source, especially for dubious resume-padding claims.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a publishers author bio. As a publisher is required to fact check an author bio unless their book is in the fiction category we can assume it is a RS unless proven otherwise. Wayne (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! / edg ☺ ☭ 17:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to indicate that Dandeloin Books, which publishes fraudsters like Israel Shamir[2], is a reliable source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing a controversial author makes a publisher an unreliable source? Please point out the WP policy that says this. Maybe it's relevant to your claim that Dandelion didn't publish an author biography for Shamir. Wayne (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to revisit this problem. "As a publisher is required to fact check an author bio unless their book is in the fiction category we can assume it is a RS unless proven otherwise." is nonsense. Author's bios are hardly ever fact-checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theorists[edit]

Other conspiracy theorists are described in the lede as such. The Atlanic Monthly[3], CBS News[4], and Salon [5] all describe him as a conspiracy theorist. We should say that in the lede.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the prominence of the birther conspiracy theory that Madsen helped launch, perhaps we should add that "reporting" to the lede too.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of Salon and CBS News description. Now of course it should be included in the lede. As a birther, this description would be consistent with WP's description of the birther movement as a conspiracy theory ("Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories"). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have read some of his articles, yesterday was the first time I had a look at his website. There is nothing there that supports he is a conspiracy theorist. He seems to report something from what he has been told as any reporter is expected to do and lets it slide if proved incorrect. He definately doesn't match the WP description of a theorist. He is not a birther unless I misinterpret Madsen's statements when he says "Obama birth certificate hoax" and "Obama's birthplace has been verified as Hawaii". The closest to conspiracy I can find in his reporting on birthers is where he says Netanyahu is very close to prominent birther Orly Taitz so he (Netanyahu) may be "making it easy for birthers" then gives a possible motive which doesn't sound much like a conspiracy or even a very strong accusation. If you want to accuse Madsen of being a conspiracy theorist you really need to provide proof he is pushing discredited theories rather than occassionally reporting on controversial topics. Wayne (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to accuse anyone of anything. I need not do orginal research to prove any such accusations. Our objective is to use reliable sources to improve articles with verifiable information. Multiple reliable sources describe this person as a conspiracy theorist. Hence we suggest that he be described as the sources cite. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can say in the article body "some sources describe Madsen as a conspiracy theorist" but it would be a BLP violation to say he actually is one based on unsupported claims. Wayne (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we have seperate multiple reliable sources that describe someone as a X, we can and should describe that person as X.Capitalismojo (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also your removal of the CBS ref "March of the Conspiracy Theorists" does talk about Madsen: "Wayne Madsen, author of the Wayne Madsen Report, was one of three questioners of the panelists. His hatred of all things George W. Bush, and love of all things conspiratorial, almost rises to self-parody." Capitalismojo (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the ref did not mention Madsen. I said the context of the mention did not support him being a conspiracy theorist. The phrase "love of all things conspiratorial" is virtually a definition applicable to any investigative journalist and not sufficient cause to state he is one. If he was a conspiracy theorist then I would expect to see notable examples in the article. There are none so the most you can say is that he has been accused. Wayne (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editing to include unreliable claims has got to stop. Capitalismojo has again deleted my compromise in the lead with the comment we have Multiple RS saying this. There are No sources saying "conspiracy-minded blogger" which is an obvious lie as the source he himself provided says exactly this and there are no "Multiple RS" saying it. Lets look at his sources.

  • The first reference is only for Madsen being being an investigative journalist and does not mention conspiracy at all.
  • The second reference says: as conspiracy-minded blogger Wayne Madsen theorized.... This article is about a topic that is not really a conspiracy theory and passing mention that a journalist (Madsen) theorised on why Karl Rove made some public appearances does not support rewording the actual text "conspiracy-minded" to read "conspiracy theorist".
  • The last reference is a blog reply by Andrew Sullivan to an anonymous blogger who accuses Madsen of being the source of the "rumour" that Israel is planning to settle Kurdish Jews in Iraq. Although Madsen may have written the article being referred to, he is not the source. There has been a Jerusalem Post article about an actual suggestion that 150,000 Israelis of Kurdish descent be resettled in Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdish media published the claim six months before Madsen. Arab media published the claim two years before Madsen. Seymour Hersh reported a somewhat similar story in 2004. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has even reported on it. Not only was he not the source of the claim but the claim is not even really conspiracy theory but it is investigative reporting. Thus this reference is not a reliable source for accusing anyone of anything.

Based on what I found on the last reference I will also delete the section "Israeli plan to colonize Iraq" from the article as this section is about a single article by Madsen. The claims have been published by others so they are not Madsen's rumours as this section claims and neither can he be blamed for it being translated into Arabic as it already had been. The section is not only not notable but a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Wayne (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

Madsen himself is a birther, but then he claims that the Israeli's are behind the rumors.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madsen is not a birther. If you go the article your link refers to you may notice that Madsen actually says the birther claim is false and accuses the GOP of trying to find a Kenyan birth certificate. Wayne (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Madsen's June 9th does not say the claim is false.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Orange County Conservative Examiner article you link seems to be referring to this Jun 9, 2008 article, although the Examiner article does not link it directly or otherwise specify. Madsen's article does not seem to take the birther position, and identifies those presenting this case as "GOP dirty tricks operatives". / edg ☺ ☭ 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Wayne may or may not be a "birther", that is not what was said or referenced. It is however true that he was apparently the first to write of the "Kenyan birth certificate" and that it had been found (by GOP a research squad in Africa). After his June article the rumors gained in intensity and detail. The fact that it birther conspiracy is all imaginary doesn't make it less notable. The fact that Madsen helped spark this increases his notability greatly. Absent this he is not particularly notable either as a "journalist" or as a "conspiracy theorist". The world is filled with both. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could use a source saying Madsen was the first to write about it. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are. The Madsen "Kenyan birth certficate" story was cited as the "evidence" of the discovery of such an item in the notorious Berg lawsuit. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78931] Capitalismojo (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with mention that after Madsen's article "the rumors gained in intensity and detail" but we must also mention that the article was actually about GOP attempts to prove Obama was not American and that the certificate was a hoax to avoid the implication that Madsen was behind the hoax. Wayne (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78931 that article] correctly, it says Berg cited Madsen, but not that Madsen was first to report this. While it is plausible that this was because Madsen was the only published source, I think it's WP:OR to assume this is the reason—Berg could have missed the original story, or just used sources he could find in a web search.
I hate to bring this tangent up (and hopefully it has been answered elsewhere already), but I'm not sure we consider either Berg or WorldNetDaily reliable sources for anything other than their own statements. WND has been dismissed several times on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and Berg is Berg. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think that WND or Berg are reliable sources. That's why I didn't use them at the article. Berg's lawsuit is the Ur-text of the birther conspiracy, the fact that Berg relied on Madsen is notable. But frankly nothing that touches this conspiracy stuff comes out unsullied. Lacking a source explicitly stating his article was the first journalist to state that we must remove it. The NYT source from Aug 2008 that I had read this in will not work. The article talks about the birther theory but it is in the comment section that the Madsen information is inserted; not suitable at all. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madsen Bio[edit]

I have found a longer detailed bio in the introduction of Madsen's book Jaded Tasks. I will bring relevant data points over, with refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His early life, navy career, and pre-journalism career have been posted (with references). Capitalismojo (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Today[edit]

He is now disinfo-in-chief for Russia Today, being used to spread dissent in the USA. I saw one of their attack videos trying to claim Blackwater are bad, and he was the one peddling nonsense. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nNGw9mJRTU). Came here to see what he's about. Good job making sure everyone knows he's a conspiracy theorist, thank you patriots. Agent4200 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Thank you patriots'. People like you make me sick - disgusting anti-American colonists plundering, raping and pillaging third-world countries with your little black-ops PMC friends and then patting yourself on the back by pushing yourself as a 'patriot'. You are not a 'patriot' for defending Blackwater - you are an anti-American traitor and sworn enemy of the Republic, and you and your fellow like-minded terrorists will be exposed as such by TRUE patriots. George Washington is rolling in his grave right now seeing scumbags defend their anti-Constitutional criminal deeds as being 'patriotic'.84.30.34.104 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: this is not a web forum. This page is for discussion on how to improve this article, not general commentary on the article's subject. Please no editorials. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is negative criticism of Blackwater an anti-American or Russian agenda?Batvette (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MINI-ESSAY (sorry): Jeremy Scahill, investigative journalist associated with Democracy Now! and Counterpunch etc., STRONG critic of Blackwater milleau, is not usually labeled a "conspiracy theorist", though he reports on conspiracies. The term "conspiracy theorist" is demeaning because the mainstream culture and professional media implies "(crackpot) conspiracy theorist". This means veering from stated and implied guidelines and "manners" of mainstream professional journalism described elsewhere as "stenographers of power", mostly quoting official statements without question or editorializing. A conspiracy theory about ANYTHING (Al-Qaeda, for instance) that comes from the White House or govt official or large corporate news outlet is not considered a "conspiracy theory", regardless of deficits in even superficial credibility, and regardless of whether strings of facts and statements make sense and/or can be corroborated independently, or contain obvious falsehoods. The "conspiracy theory" label is arbitrary, intentionally demeaning, and at best, a judgment call. Investigative journalism *IS* de facto "conspiracy theory" if it suggests some actors have hidden motives and pertinent hidden connections -- as if human history books and the historical Bible are not chock-full of hidden motives -- if the reporting does not either defend the govt (or power) or provide excuses for "mistakes" or even "incompetence". The issue should be whether a journalist's allegations are sourced, quality of sourcing, and whether the journalist conceals or reveals the nature, reliability, and estimated quality of sourcing of allegations and statements he reports. Professional "non-conspiracy" journalism means intentionally avoiding even obvious questions, inferences, and challenges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.16.100 (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-pubslished template[edit]

Added this template because there's lots of information in the article whose only source is Madsen himself. We have no way of knowing whether his grandmother really helped Jews during WWII or its just a story that Madsen made up one day. Self-published sources are generally not accepted, especially when the source is clearly unreliable. I'll be removing whatever is sourced only to Madsen unless someone comes up with a policy basis not to.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLP Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves with certain expemptions, none of which obviously apply in this case. These exemptions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses, these are treated as reliable sources. The source Jaded Tasks is not itself self published. Also per WP:V Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. There is no evidence that the subject is an unreliable source beyond the possibility that some of his articles may be incorrect which can be said of any investigative journalist that relies on outside sources. I have searched and found no source disputing any of the biographical details and some details in the article are of a nature that making such a claim is a criminal offense if false. My interpretation of Wikipedia policy seems to imply that we need reliable sources disputing Madsens claims to remove content. Wayne (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, It is undisputed that the Danish communists helped the Jews as this is documented. Unless a source disputes that his grandmother was a communist we can assume the claim is true as Madsen has made it publicly. Wayne (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is incorrect. Per self published, material can be used if; "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject". Hence this claim should be scrubbed.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously proposing that information about Madsens family (and employment) is "not directly related to the subject"? I would remind you that you added the material yourself. All I did was reword it to avoid the appearance of an attempt to discredit him per WP:NPOV. Wayne (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Not directly related to the subject" in this context means the subject witnessed or experienced it. There is no way that Wayne could have witnessed the actions of his Grandmother before his birth. The bits I put in about her are verifiable ( Editor of Communist Paper). But perhaps you are correct and it should all be removed, per the self published policies. I may have made a great mistake by posting any of his self reported biography. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Wayne what is your source for Wayne's birthday?Capitalismojo (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If she was in the Danish communist party then she was involved in the smuggling of the Jews and this is documented in the specific article of the event. WP:Syth is avoided by linking the party directly to the event. Wayne Madsens birth date is from a personal communication from him to a website that's subject matter is unrelated to anything on his own page, nor is it notable in it's own right so I didn't link it. I can probably find it again and post the link in talk if you want it. Wayne (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self Published[edit]

Here is WP Poicy on Self Published:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I post this here because I expanded the article using the self-published material. The article has since been expanded significantly in ways that I think break these policy points. In fact it is getting very close to copyright violations. It must be pared back significantly. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown News weblog[edit]

Removed this External link as a self-published source, but some of the critiques on that page might be work adding here if they can be reliably sourced. For what it's worth, that web page is an explanation of why they refuse to add news Madsen-sourced to their site. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theorist[edit]

The Atlantic is a long established reliable source. It and other mainstream media are referenced describing this individual as a conspiracy theorist. We must strive to be accurate. Furthermeore, Wayne, there is no established consensus saying he is anything but a conspiracy theorist. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracies Wayne M. endorses; Israeli mossad/jewish control of CNN. Israeli particapiation in 9/11, the London bombings and Bali bombings, secret jewish efforts to colonize Iraq, manmade H1N1, and 9/11 as inside job. He is the definitive conspiracy theorist. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is an investigative journalist and many of his "conspiracy theories" have been proven correct. Most of his reporting has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Just because some of his claims have not been proven does not make him a conspiracy theorist or there would be no such thing as an investigative journalist. Wayne (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Wayne, it does not matter if you agree with or believe that these theories are correct. It only matters that major national and international media souces have gone on the record describing him as a conspiracy theorist. It is Verifiable and is in fact verified. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article pretends to be bereft of POV then it should accompany claims of him being a conspiracy minded blogger with balancing qualifiers of his credibility. I do believe that stacking up back biting comments by other political pundits don't serve to make a quality article, FWIW. I think what you may be overlooking is on the issues you list above, did he have a tip or reference on them at the time he raised the issue? Nevermind that you are attempting to present your opinion that Madsen is a conspiracy theorist, while just in the next reply saying his opinion doesn't matter. Can you see that doesn't seem like you're playing fair and maybe you're being a little overzealous here? I think the issue deserves a criticism section, and not a cheap shot in the lede IMO. This may actually work toward your side as you could expand it. Just my 2 cents, I'll not loiter and will leave you guys to hash it out. Batvette (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever Madsen reports what some might call a "conspiracy theory" it is always connected with what sources have told him or based on tips received. The exception being the paedophile case where he himself was involved in the investigation. That story was rejected for years as a conspiracy theory until it was eventually proven to be true. I dont think he reports stories without first having someone come to him with information. This to me is a journalist, to call him a conspiracy theorist to my mind is just an attempt by his critics to discredit him. You only need to check which media sources use the term to notice a political commonality and an inclination to imply that what Madsen reports that his sources claim are his own ideas. Wayne (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is your opinion, and it only goes so far. It appears that mainstream sources consider him a conspiracy theorist so its that description that we go by here at Wikipedia.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually said it was my opinion but that doesn't change the facts. What are these mainstream sources? I can only find a blog by Andrew Sullivan in a conservative newspaper that is a reply to a story Madsen wrote that was falsly claimed to be a conspiracy theory (it had already been reported by mainstream media as a fact). This is the source given for the claim in this article. There are however a few RS that have used this Wikipedia article as their own reference for the claim. All the RS I have been able to find that claim Madsen has reported conspiracy theories still refer to him as an investigative journalist. A search for Madsen as a conspiracy theorist will give 2,000 results which are mostly forums and blogs while a search for Madsen as an investigative journalist returns more than 20,000 results. what would WP's stance on due weight be in this instance? Wayne (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think he reports stories without first having someone come to him with information. This to me is a journalist,
That is a very good point and one that shouldn't be diminished. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the vicinity of mentioning him as a conspiracy theorist in the pursuit of balance. Batvette (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI question: Wayne's involvement in guarding this page.[edit]

Up until June 11th this was on the front page of Wayne's site

"ISRAEL REPRESENTS A MAJOR THREAT TO THE PEACE AND SECURITY OF THE WORLD. WMR READERS UNDERSTAND THE ROLE ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE PLAYED IN 9/11, THE LONDON TRANSIT BOMBINGS, THE BALI BOMBING, AND OTHER "FALSE FLAG" OPERATIONS AROUND THE WORLD. ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE AGENTS ARE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. IT IS TIME TO "OUT" THEM IN THEIR OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC CAPACITIES AND THEIR NON-OFFICIAL COVER (NOC) STATUS."

Then the Wayne who watches this page deleted it from the article, in a miracle it was also deleted from Wayne Madsen's site at the same time. There seems to be some extraordinary coincidence. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the page this morning and it didn't say the above. It reads in regards to propaganda in the media and not as was implied by this artical that Israel had some more sinister involvement. I am not a subcriber so can't check what else Madsen says but this article should reflect his views not your views on what you think he means. The above in isolation without more detail on what he is talking about is a clear BLP violation. Wayne (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a site that reproduces Wayne's work http://blogs.myspace.com/nierikaisback Capitalismojo (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is never a violation of BLP to accurately quote a subject. Nothing is implied, only quoted. I have not put any of what I think in this section. Only what Wayne himself says. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly the link you supplied is a myspace page not a RS. Regardless of it being a direct quote it is still a BLP violation due to implications it makes due to a lack of context. As the replacement text on Madsens site partially addresses this lack it should be used instead although it should also be summarised rather than printed in full as it is such a small percentage of his reporting. Wayne (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having carefully read and long considered the BLP policy since 2010, I can't see how accurately quoting someone is a violation of the BLP policy. The context was included (Front page of Wayne's site), and the entire statement was used unedited or expurgated so nothing was or could have been taken out of context. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering what he writes in articles in regards to that text, it is obvious that people took the original text out of context as did some editors here who erronously believe the page was the claim in it's entirety. Madsen rewrote the page (effectively retracting it) which makes using the original a BLP violation. Wayne (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony H. Cordesman, an obviously-mainstream high-level national security consultant with scads of high-level connections and duties, once publicly described Israel as a in some ways a "strategic liability" to U.S. interests. As polite and reserved as that statement was, and considering Cordesman's other strongly pro-Israel positions, and considering other U.S. counter-terrorism officials and politicians of both parties who have made similar statements, I believe that context shifts Madsen's more BLUNT observations away from "fringe" or "bizarre" and closer to mainstream opinion. Early stories on Israeli-Mossad involvement in Sept 11 were carried on one of the more blatant pro-Israel news outlets, Fox, with Carl Cameron and Brit Hume, widely respected journalists in conservative circles, as well as by The Forward, a Jewish publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.16.100 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catch-22 of Obama - bath house - dead bodies[edit]

Someone removed the verbiage about "Madsen reached his heretofore height of controversy when on May 24, 2010, he published a pay-per-view report alledging that President Obama was a member of a gay bath house in Chicago and that several other members, alledgedly gay sex-partners of Obama, were brutally murdered 'execution style' in late 2007 at the height of the presidential campaign" with a statement to the effect that "the content is not reported by mainstream media and thus lacks notability." Since Madsen is an investigative journalist with the mission in life of digging out the news that is definitely not reported by the mainstream media (MSM), it is a Catch-22 if treatment of non-MSM reporting must be MSM-dependent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.176.66 (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography so examples of his reporting not covered by mainstream media is not that relevant unless it forms a large part of his total reporting or he has made a major issue of the subject matter (in which case it would would have been reported by mainstream media). We cant give this prominence to just one topic without similar treatment for the hundreds of others he has reported. Wayne (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Gay Obama Special Report is still online, and it matters significantly during the 2012 election year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.41.140 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Nation magazine has covered this conspiracy theory of Madsen's. There is now RS to add this material into the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life & Career problems[edit]

Some time ago I added the bulk of the biographical details to the article. The source for the information was JADED TASKS, a book that Madsen wrote. It has been made clear to me that in biographies of living people we are not to use the subjects own statements as a proper verified source. I would like to ask for assistance in finding VS material or refs for the Life and Career information. If we can't find it I am afraid much of it will have to be removed. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see a problem with using Madsens book. According to WP:SELFPUB self-published sources can be used if written or published by the subject, the information is about themselves and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. I cant see any obvious violation of WP:BLP unless any of his biographical claims are disputed. For some reason this article has attracted editors with a narrow focus on trivial claims that are easily confirmed but difficult to reference. For example we can find a ref for every single show he has ever been on or newspaper that has published him but this would require dozens of unneccessary refs to support what several reporters have already grouped together in the sources already supplied. I suggest that only disputed claims should need further referencing per BLP. Wayne (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your deletion of two paragraphs from the career section as self published. Both contain references to awards/medals. As it is a criminal offense to claim awards and medals you are not entitled to, the claims must be held as true as I seriously doubt he could repeatedly make the claims for six years without a critic having him charged or at least outing him Both paragraphs are long standing and comply with the use of self published sources, you are the only editor objecting so please self revert. Why do you reject self published sources for positive claims but have no problem accepting the very same sources for negative claims? I believe that BLP guidelines require negative claims to have a far higher standard of sourcing than positive ones. Wayne (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Here's the deal. BLP says your can use SPS (self published sources) if they aren't self agrandizing. Here is the actual policy;

Avoid self-published sources Shortcut: WP:BLPSPS Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[4] See below for our policy on self-published images.

Using the subject as a self-published source Further information: WP:SELFPUB

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if;

  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources
That having been said. It is clear that the claims about awards and medals are by definition self-serving, invlove third parties, and is based primarily (in fact solely) on Self Published Sources. I added almost all of this biographical material ages ago. It was a mistake born of ignorance. I am trying to clean it up now. I hope that explains the edits. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can help! If you can find a RS we can re-add the medals, the story about Coos Bay etc. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing...it says "unduly self serving" which is not the case. One paragraph may involve a third party but the claim regarding the third party is public record so no violation here either. There is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity. The only possible violation left is based primarily on such sources and that is arguable and cherrypicking.
As for your replacement of the conspiracy theorist claim. I don't give a flying flugel if the refs are both RS. The Salon ref is NOT a RS for the claim. Salon does not make the claim but rather says he is "conspiracy minded" and the report the term refers to was proven to be actually true...ergo no conspiracy. That leaves one RS for a negative claim which is not enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. As for the Atlantic...the claim is made in a blog and the above you posted states: Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Andrew Sullivan is on record as saying the Atlantic DOES NOT have any editorial control or oversight over it's blogs. In fact, Sullivan actually said he could write "any bullshit" he liked. Wayne (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO lede paragraph[edit]

The lede paragraph is a cut and paste from Wayne Madsen's blog. I will remove the COPYVIO. Perhaps we can find some other way to begin this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the copy from the blog. :::Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, Counterpunch, Online Journal, CorpWatch, Multinational Monitor, News Insider, In These Times, and The American Conservative. His columns have appeared in The Miami Herald, Houston Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Columbus Dispatch, Sacramento Bee, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution, among others.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing , among others from the end negates it being a COPYVIO. A list of newspaper names and a job description cant be copyrighted, unless the order the names are in can be, in which case we can re-arrange them to get around that. Wayne (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole paragraph is copied. Dropping two words doesn't change that. I will attempt to add the meat of the information back into the article appropriately. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A list of newspaper names and a job description cant be copyrighted. Read copyright and if you dont understand it I will explain. Wayne (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've split it up, moved part to another section and put the newspapers in alphabetical order. No possibility of a copyright violation no matter how you look at it. Wayne (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing article[edit]

This is interesting. First we delete the CBS story "March of the Conspiracy Theorists" which highlighted Madsen. Then poof out goes Salon.com. Then bang we only have the Atlantic Monthly and "Ta Dah!" it's suddenly not notable lets bury it. This is absurd. If it weren't for his conspiracy theories Madsen wouldn't deserve his own article. The US has tens of thousands of journalists of which Madsen is just one struggling free-lancer. We had a pretty good consensus on conspiracy theorist and now with a series of clever deletions of RS that is gone. This depresses me. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, by the way, inappropriate (and frustrating) to use links for refs that can't be opened. It is impossible to WP:V if it is hidden behind a paywall. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ref for CBS made no claim that he was a conspiracy theorist. Salon didn't support the claim being made so cant be a RS for that claim either. The atlantic story is a BLOG so is not as notable as a real article. Unless they are major sources, even having two or three minor RS for the claim is still not enough to justify mention in the lead. If Madsen is such a big conspiracy theorist you should be able to find more than a single mention in a blog by a writer who is not even a journalist to support it. Your claimed consensus was one person so not really a consensus at all. Only one other person accepted the claim and that was based soley on the mistaken belief that Madsen was a birther which he is not, as is shown in his articles where he call the birther claims "a hoax" and supports Obama. Wayne (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the CBS story "March of the Conspiracy Theorists" DID NOT highlight Madsen. It was an opinion piece about Cynthia McKinney, describing her as being on the "lunatic fringe of leftist politics" and her setting up "brain trust panels... stocked with like-minded conspiracy theorists" which sets the tone for the whole article. The only mention of Madsen is in a single paragraph in the two page article as one of three "questioners of the panelists", without even mentioning what questions he asked them. It is obvious that the author Sonny Bunch, whose main occupation is a movie reviewer for newspapers, is using the conspiracy theorist tag for McKinney and her panelists. Nowhere in the article does it use the tag in reference to Madsen. Wayne (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The March of the Conspiracy Theorists most certainly does highlight Madsen. It names just a handful of conspiracy theorists that were panelists. Madsen was the first named of those that attended as a panelist. His appearance apparently was so amazing that it was a self-parody. He is the ultimate conspiracy theorist, if you read the article. The first in the "March" article's parade of conspiracy theorists. As to Sonny Burch, this is a former The Hill reporter who was, at the time of the article assistant editor of the Weekly Standard, and is now editor and reporter with the Washington Times. The fact that he continues to be a straight news reporter only adds luster to a pretty straight-forward report on that massing of the conspiracy theorists. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have avoided the elephant in the room which is: If Madsen isn't a conspiracy theorist, then he isn't notable. There are tens of thousands of actual journalists (as opposed to self-employed bloggers) in this country alone who are more widely published and respected. It is only his wacky conspiracy theories that make him notable. The Russian government doesn't put him on RT and the Iranian government doesn't use him on PressTV because of his reasonable mainstream views. He is a conspiracy theorist and that is his notability. Strip that away and you have just another blogger. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using Highbeam is not inappropriate as anyone with access can verify the article. If you need to verify content you can ask any of the editors listed on this page. I did not pay for the account, the Wikipedia foundation gave me the account specifically to use for Wikipedia articles. Wayne (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne, you lost all these arguments years ago on this article. CBS, The Atlantic, Salon, all were discussed at length. Now, when no one seems to care a whit about the article you have swooped in to whitewash the article. You must admit if Wayne Madsen wasn't a conspiracy theorist he wouldn't be notable. He just isn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it considered a loss when you and I were the only editors discussing those sources in 2009? Only one other editor commented and from that comment it is clear that he took your word for it rather than check the sources for himself. In the 2010 discussion you pushed for it again but this time a new editor came in saying you were "being a little overzealous" and suggested a critism section instead of claiming he was CT. Again, this does not seem like a loss. You can not use sources that do not support a claim being made and you shouldn't even be using a blog as the sole reference to support a negative claim. I have repeatedly tried to compromise but you continue to misinterpret sources and use OR. If Wayne Madsen is as big a conspiracy theorist as you claim he is, then you should be able to find mainstream media sources supporting that. Wayne (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self Published sources. Non-reliable source info (club membership)[edit]

As previously discussed, I have removed non-RS information that was (accurately) tagged by another editor last year as coming from Self Published Sources. SPS are inappropriate for biographies. I was the one who initially added the information, I was wrong to do so. Unless and until reliable sources can be found the SPS (including the Navy career information) must not be restored. There is no, absolutely no, source for the club/association memberships. It may not be added. Even if there was a source it should not be added. No other journalist's bio on Wikipedia lists club memberships and furthermore anyone can join all of these organizations for a handful of dollars online. Why are they notable? Answer, they're not. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one doubts that the investigation happened in Coos Bay. The point is that there is no reliable source on Madsen's involvement. Madsen writing about it in a NJ newspaper falls under Self-published, obviously. The mere fact that something occurred does not mean the article's subject was involved. Absent reliable source the material must remain out. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph describing Madsens involvement was written by the newspapers editor not Madsen. Wayne (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? Really. I've looked at the article. There is nothing, nothing to suggest that someone else wrote anything that appeared under Madsen's name in the column. I have started a new section below with the relevant ref. Perhaps you care share and point out where it backs up the assertion.Capitalismojo (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dont you think it is strange that in 30 years Madsens critics havn't been able to discredit any of Madsen's claims regarding his career? Why do you hate the guy so much that you can't just tag problematic claims and discuss them in Talk? Wayne (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article from New Jersey is by Madsen, period. It is published under his byline. BLP requires removal of controversial material immediately. Self published material is inappropriate. I initially added the self published material and am trying to rectify an early editing mistake. Everything I have done here I have explained in detail.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for hating Madsen, I couldn't care less. He's a joke. He allows himself to be used by the dregs on world "press" (Russia's RT, and Iran's PressTV) to peddle his wild ideas. Fine, good for him. Everyone needs to pay the rent. What I am trying to do is save this article under the policies of Wikipedia. Under those policies this material can't be added. He barely meets notability. ...He has no critics digging into his career, no one cares enough. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find a reliable source that doesn't appear under Madsen's byline and you can add it. Verify it. I think it is a hell of a story...if it is true. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat. The paragraph describing Madsens involvement was written by the newspapers editor not Madsen so it complies with WP policy. Wayne (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Madsen has plenty of critics willing to write long articles on his reporting. Sullivan especially would have discredited his career if he could have as by catching him out lying it would massively support his own critism of Madsens articles, especially as some of Madsens claims would be a criminal offense if false. He may "peddle...[some] wild ideas" but some of his reporting is followed up by mainstream reporters, it's how I came across him as, because it's a pay site, apart from the home page I've never read his website. Wayne (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As regards tagging problem areas and discussing them here; these problems were tagged in 2009. I didn't tag them, but they woke me to the problem. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a sections blanket SP tag to delete everything you dont like without discussion. The tag says "improper references" and that can be subjective. Wayne (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put up any tags, another editor placed them. The improper references (SPS) have been discussed here by me since 2009. (Although I waited a long time actually do anything, hoping to find a RS.) They are not subjective. It has been laid out explicitly on the talk page. The material is from Madsen's own writings. That is not allowed. I was the one who put it into the article, and ultimately I felt responsible to take it out. If you felt that talking about the self-published material needed additional discussion than three years, ok then. Lets talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, I don't "like" taking this out. I think the story of a navy lt. aiding in the arrest and conviction of a corrupt superior officer is a great story. It is one of the better stories I have seen in a bio here at Wikipedia. That's why I added it. If there is a legitimate source for it I would love it! We don't have one therefore it has to go.Capitalismojo (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Ref[edit]

I have removed myself from the mainspace article for several months so as to avoid being drawn into edit warring. I will confine my activities to making suggestions to improve the article. Well then...In order to add material related to Madsen's time in the Navy a ref has been added. It is from the NJ Record. The point of the ref is to find non-SPS (self published sources). An editor suggests that this ref fulfills the non-SPS ref need. It was hidden behind a paywall at Highbeam Research. I have signed up for the service to look at the ref. I paste the relevant sections below, removing some paragraphs to avoid copyright issues.

An unwelcome parting gift from Lott By WAYNE MADSEN Date: 01-03-2003, Friday
OUTGOING SENATE Republican leader Trent Lott had one more nasty surprise for the American people before he announced he was quitting his leadership post.
He nominated former Navy Secretary John Lehman as a member of the "independent" Sept. 11 investigation commission, passing over former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., a respected former head of the President' s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-chair, along with former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., of a federal blue-ribbon Commission on National Security that recommended drastic changes in the U.S. intelligence infrastructure before the attacks in 2001.
Lehman was Navy secretary from 1981 to 1987 and presided over Ronald Reagan's buildup to a 600-ship Navy. But Lehman also presided over one of the worst cover-ups in the Navy's entire 227-year history.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Material removed XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The Navy's pedophilia scandal broke in the quiet and serene Oregon coastal town of Coos Bay on Sept. 11, 1982, when the commanding officer of the U.S. Naval Facility, a classified submarine tracking station, was arrested by local police for involvement in child pornography and lascivious acts with minors, including sodomy. The arrest followed a 2-month-long investigation involving the FBI and the Naval Investigative Service.
At a general courts-martial held later that year, the commanding officer, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and P-3 Orion pilot having both Critical Nuclear Weapons Design Information and top-secret communications security clearances was found guilty of 16 counts of sodomy and lewd conduct.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Material removed xxxxxxxxxxxx
Rewarding an arch-cover up artist like John Lehman with a seat on the Sept. 11 investigation commission is a disservice to the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks who are seeking answers to why it happened and closure to their horrific tragedies.
...
Wayne Madsen was the operations officer at Naval Facility Coos Head, Ore., from 1980 to 1982 and assisted the FBI and NIS in the investigation as a temporary special agent. His columns frequently appear in Intelligence Online (www.intelligenceonline.com) and Counter Punch (www.counterpunch.com).

One editor suggests that because the article has a space at the end of the column and then a brief description of Madsen, that the brief description must have been written by the news editor of the Bergan NJ Record itself and as such is a reliable source. Unfortunately the article as clearly says nothing of the sort. This is a column written by Madsen. His biography paragraph at the end has nothing to indicate that it wasn't written by him. In fact it must have been. This article is two decades and 2000 miles seperated from the Oregon incident in question. Clearly it is OR to read into an article something the article doesn't say. The article states it is written by Madsen, we must go by what is written. Thus it is again a Self Published Source and not a suitable ref for the biography. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "brief description" follows the normal format for editors explaining an authors expertise. Madsen's involvement is supported by his book Jaded Tasks, where he names Coos Bay officers and details events that would have left him open to both Federal prosecution and common libel suits if the claims were not true. At the very least his critics would have discredited the claims to support their own critism if they were able. Wayne (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is by definition SPS. If you would like to use it take it to RS discussion Capitalismojo (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Revert Discuss[edit]

Having purposely stayed away from this article for 8 months (Since July 4, 2012), I have come back to it with fresh eyes. I have looked again at the refs and the various sections. It is still something of a mess. I am actually wondering if the subject meets notability requirements. Assuming for now that it does, the article needs work. I have removed the self published source material that indicates Madsen played a key role in a criminal investigation while in the Navy. We would need a Reliable Source to re-add it. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me emphasize that the policy WP:BRD requires that rather than re-add this material willy-nilly, that consensus be achieved first. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NSA Q Group needs its own Wikipedia page[edit]

The NSA Q Group needs its own Wikipedia page and not just redirect to here to Wayne Madsen. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annual inclusion of conspiracy theorist to the lead and other BLP problems[edit]

Every year this keeps being inserted into the lead using the same problematic sources that are discussed every year. Three blogs are not reliable sources for a claim to be in the lead. For the "batshit crazy" claim, the source did not make the claim, it claimed someone else said it. It is no different to many personal claims made about former president Bush and we are not including them in the lead of his article. The "fruitloop" claim is from a news article and this also has problems. The article word for word was reprinted by my state newspaper and they removed the fruitloop claim, probably as it is obviously a personal opinion. The article also falsely claims that Madsen is a "Birther" when in fact Madsen was the first journalist to call it a hoax. Calling the subject of an article "batshit crazy" and a "fruitloop" in lead are BLP violations. Articles are not meant to be used to discredit subjects based on a handful of peoples personal opinions. The blog claims I've moved to the article body where they belong.
I've also changed "reports that he was loaned to the National Security Agency" to "was assigned to the National Security Agency" and provided a ref, added his media memberships and I replaced the blood diamond paragraph that was deleted with no reason given. Wayne (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What blogs? No personal blogs were used as refs. See WP:NEWSBLOG. The source did use the exact term "batshit crazy", by the way. It is a quote. Madsen's only claim to notability is that he is an extreme conspiracy theorist. Without the stuff pointing out that he believes Obama is a gay, CIA plant Madsen would not be worthy of an article. It's the only reason Forbes, Telegraph, ABC, etc have ever spoken about him. Disparaging opinions are not to be deleted if they are notable. The Nation, Forbes, UK Telegraph, Salon, Seattle Post, are refs that reliable source. Removing them wholessale is improper. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article as currently structured looks pretty sound to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can have the fact that he has been called something in the lead -- but having the same claim multiple times is contrary to WP:BLP. Also appearing on a show is not exactly "lead material" especially with the source given. It is likely too many sources are now in the lead, but they can be removed at will, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that may be wise if it was somewhat controversial a claim. Not sure it is, and I think there's much milage to say we're being conservative compared to terms used in RS. So, as it is, I checked a random other conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and it is in his first sentence. I fixed the broken lead and made it similar. This is his notability, so I do consider that removing some of the links to journalist etc may be appropriate. Widefox; talk 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not edit Jones to my recollection, and so that does not affect my opinion about stating opinions as opinions and fcts as facts here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We detail in a balanced way what reliable sources describe him as (WP:TRUTH), and his conspiracies are his notability, including his reputation killing what seems to be an ok Guardian article. I'd like to point out reverting to the broken version seems a bit extreme. Want to explain or undo yourself? Also, explain what's the the BLP problem? Widefox; talk 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph says it's a blog and it does not call Madsen a conspiracy theorist anyway, it calls him "a fruitloop", the Seattle Post Intelligencer does not call him a conspiracy theorist, it reports that someone they spoke to said he was batshit crazy, the Daily Beast is written in blog style despite it reporting as news, Forbes does not call him a conspiracy theorist either, Talking Points Memo is a blog and The Commentator says it's a blog. If all we have is newsblogs for the claim it shouldn't be in the lead. Put it in the body where is was before. Wayne (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{insert} Other editors have looked at your arguments about the refs and disagreed. You are conflating the refs by the way. Telegraph and Forbes aren't used to ref "conspiracy" in the article. They ref the Gaurdian controversy. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's other opinions, ad-hominems. So? Conspiracy theorist is adequately sourced. I fail to see your point? Widefox; talk 17:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the lead has now been edited away from what other editors have expressed as OK sourced, I have tagged the lead as needing discussion. I expect consensus to be reached here before more reverting to broken versions and whitewashing due to wikilawyering, per comments at BLP noticeboard. cf Alex Jones where conspiracy is in the first sentence. WP:LEAD > WP:CONTEXTLINK says notability link goes in the first sentence. Widefox; talk 17:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Collect, the context link was all I came here for, and certainly didn't expect this. Can we agree that is his notability, or is it something else? WP:FRINGE guideline is crystal clear for this BLP: "Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." By presenting the opinion of "some" as being dissenters to his POV, this article inverts FRINGE. Widefox; talk 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have five refs for the claim in the lead. Of those five only one is a news source, three are blogs and one says he is a "conspiracy minded blogger", not a "conspiracy theorist". Therefor "some" is correctly used. Until the Commentator fiasco only blogs used the term for him. Some of them may be newsblogs but WP:BLP says only that "these may be acceptable as sources", for news I have no problem but for pejorative descriptions of people I hold that pejoratives are generally personal opinions when used in blogs so are not generally acceptable. I also can't see the connection to Alex Jones, as far as I know he is known only for conspiracy theories and is not an expert in the field. Madsen on the other hand is an expert in the intelligence field, has written two highly regarded books on the subject and has some significant news scoops to his name that far outweigh any "conspiracy theories" he may believe. As his blog is a paysite I can't check what he says there but I've yet to hear of any of his conspiracy theories that are even notable. Every story a journalist investigates is a conspiracy theory until proven, mention that he has been called a conspiracy theorist is acceptable although as I have long maintained "conspiracy minded blogger" is more accurate, but Madsen's win/lose record is too high to have his primary occupation labeled as a conspiracy theorist without a significant number of refs from reliable sources, not blogs. Wayne (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been taken to the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard. The position promoted above did not have consensus or any agreement. Moreover a variety of editors have weighed in. None have agreed with the assertions above. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I also seem problems of POV editing/undermining perfectly OK sources with edits like this [6] . Please gain consensus for such controversial edits, and fully use this page to get agreement. Continuing to do so against consensus that this is a valid RS (here and BLP board) may be seen as disruptive. Widefox; talk 16:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent News: Madsen is Notable![edit]

Our long term concern about whether the subject of this article has been resolved. Madsen has made international news. He has been the focus of a series of articles worldwide about his unreliability and conspiracy mongering. He is now a notable international conspiracy theorist. Those that have now written about him as a conspiracy theorist include the Telegraph, Seattle Post, the Nation, Business Insider, Forbes, Salon, ABC, among other. Our concerns are now laid to rest. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on notability, and I think this BLP is possibly less controversial now there's more sources. I can understand polarised views before now, but time to move on... I commented here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wayne_Madsen (and don't care enough to repeat myself on this talk page). Widefox; talk 11:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The following text has been deleted by User:Capitalismojo on the grounds it is not about the controversy.

According to Forbes, on June 30, 2013, the same day that the Observer both published and retracted the article, Reuters reported the same claims, but sourced from NSA documentation supplied by Edward Snowden to support his claims regarding the cyber-espionage programs Tempora and Prism.[1][2]

In fact, Forbes magazine reports it to support that the claims were correct, that the reason the story was deleted was due to Madsen's reliability, rather than the stories content and that it possibly should not have been retracted. It should be noted that the refs used to support Madsen being a conspiracy theorist claim that the story itself is either "fake" or a conspiracy theory. Without context, readers will assume that the story is a conspiracy theory. BLPs are not supposed to be hit pieces and this article is already POV in it's negativity to the subject regarding his reporting through omission of his notable "scoops". Notable positive material should be included to balance negative material when available. I bring it to talk to avoid an edit war. Is the paragraph relevant? Wayne (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have convinced me. I will self-revert. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference joy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Breidthard, Annika (June 30, 2013). "U.S. taps half-billion German phone, internet links in month: report". Reuters. Retrieved 5 July 2013.

NPOV BRD[edit]

The following text has been deleted/reworded twice on the grounds of (1) "per NPOV; he is regarded by many more as a "conspiracy theorist" or "batshit crazy" than as a SIGINT expert" and (2) WP:BRD. The first revert comment is WP:OR. Per WP:BRD-NOT, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes and BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." As the original is adequately sourced and I'm assuming the editor is experienced, instead of reverting twice, the editor should have brought it to the Talk page instead of making me do it for him when I have no idea what his concerns are.

Madsen has been described as one of the world's leading SIGINT and computer security experts.[7] He has been described by critics as a conspiracy theorist.[8][9][10][11][12]

Was reverted to read:

He is generally regarded as a conspiracy theorist.[7][8][9][10][11]

Regarding the deleted sentence: The reference is a RS speaking in his area of expertise[13]. Madsen has testified as an intelligence and computer expert before several Senate and European Union investigative committees. He has written two books, Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 and Handbook of Personal Data Protection 1992, the second of which is used by the NSA as a textbook. He is also co-author with James Bamford of the 2001 rewrite of The Puzzle Palace. The claim has better sourcing than some of the negative claims in the article.
Regarding the rewording: The claim has five references in support. The first reference is a news report calling Madsen a conspiracy theorist. The next three are blogs. The last is also a blog, but does not use the term, it calls Madsen a conspiracy-minded blogger.
WP:BLP and WP:Weight both apply. A single news reference does not carry enough weight to use the term "generally regarded," especially as it does not claim that the term is used by anyone else. The fact that all the sources are criticizing Madsen's reporting supports "He has been described by critics as a conspiracy theorist" at best. Blogs are personal opinion and should be used carefully. The blogs may be newsblogs but Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." Wayne (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This very issue has been taken to the noticeboards. It has been discussed extensively here. No other editors agreed with that assessment or characterization of the referenced sources as non-RS, blogs, or opinion. I would point out that some very veteran editors and admins have weighed in at the noticeboard and subsequently here. They have not, to date, agreed with the points above.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted sentence was not discussed on the noticeboard and the reliability of blogs for the claim was only discussed under WP:Fringe which cant apply. The fact that the blogs were discussing a subject that is not fringe negates WP:Fringe and Fringe does not make unreliable sources reliable anyway. The claim has not been addressed based on Wikipedia policy. Wayne (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne I thought we'd moved on from this? The current lead was written by someone coming here during that escalation, and I thought the consensus was done. Isn't this a case of WP:DEADHORSE ? Widefox; talk 18:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. I can't imagine there is any disagreement. This discussion is entirely overcooked and going back to the noticeboards really would be like nuking a deadhorse. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wording accepted by consensus was; He has been described by some as a conspiracy theorist. This is supported by the references supplied and I have no problem with it or the alternative, He has been described by critics as a conspiracy theorist, which was edited a couple of days later, the current version was edited four days after consensus was gained and is not supported by those refs and is a clear BLP violation. The deleted sentence had better sourcing than the current version. Wayne (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. I think the current formulation is correct, broadly agreed upon here and at the noticeboard, accurate and extremely well cited. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that this is a "clear BLP violation" I would suggest two things. The first is get User:Collect to weigh in here at the talk pages. He is screaming death on BLP violations and is a top ten editor on the BLP noticeboards. He has done one round of cleanup here before. Perhaps you can get some input and agreement from him that would build consensus here. Alternatively, you could take this back to the BLP noticeboard again. My two cents, for what its worth. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- it is reasonable to say "(sources) have called him a 'conspiracy theorist'". It is not reasonable to include "batshit crazy" as that was an opinion from a single source, and is not placed in a neutral tone in this BLP. 'Generally regarded" requires a more explicit source for the broadening of the claim than is currently provided. "SIGINT expert" is likely an opinion which should be ascribed to the person stating that opinion - I doubt that this is as widely noted as the first, but that does not mean we exclude it from the BLP. IMO and per WP:BLP as best I can determine. Collect (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a multiple RS sources that say he is a conspiracy theorist. Shouldn't we just say: "He is a conspiracy theorist." It's what the refs support. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Scoops[edit]

About "notable scoops"? If there are notable scoops that we haven't put up they should be added. The one that has gotten the most coverage is Madsen's "scoop" that President Barack Obama is gay. The Nation covered that scoop in some detail. He got some coverage in Middle East media for his "scoop" that Isreal is secretly colonizing Iraq. I'm not sure that's notable though. Capitalismojo (talk)
Madsen's "scoops" include ECHELON and PRISM where he reported on them before the newspapers who got the credit for exposing them in the WP articles and First Fruits. There is no WP article for First Fruits but it may be listed under another name. It was the NSA and CIA carrying out surveillance on the phone calls of journalists. The "Obama is gay" scoop was a story Madsen wrote in 2010, A search shows he apparently hasn't continued with the claim although his critics regularly bring it up. The "Israel colonizing Iraq" story is easy to refute. The story originated from the Jerusalem Post and involved a plan to resettle Kurdish Jews from Israel to Iraq. Seymour Hersh reported the Jerusalem Post story in 2004. The Arab media began publishing the claim from 2007 on. Madsen first published the claim in 2009. Interestingly, also in 2009, Kurds in Iraq formally invited Kurdish Jews to immigrate to Iraq. The confusion comes about because the media credits Madsen with the original story when reporting on it. Wayne (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Ok, interesting. Is there a RS ref for any ECHELON or PRISM scoop by Madsen? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE:ECHELON

The system has been reported in a number of public sources.[6] Its capabilities and political implications were investigated by a committee of the European Parliament during 2000 and 2001 with a report published in 2001,[5] and by author James Bamford in his books on the National Security Agency of the United States.[4] - Wikipedia

James Bamfords book The Puzzle Palace (1982) used an article co-authored by Wayne Madsen and Nicky Hager as a source. This article was apparently the first mention of ECHELON's capabilities. In the 2001 re-issue of Bamfords The Puzzle Palace he credits Madsen as co-author. Madsen himself wrote about ECHELON in CovertAction Quarterly issues 63-65 in 1998. The EU committee took evidence from "former NSA employee" Madsen which is cited in their 2001 report. The book Chatter: Uncovering the Echelon Surveillance Network and the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping 2006 by Patrick Keefe also mentions Madsens work as whistleblower.
RE:PRISM

Its existence was leaked [in 2013] by NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who claimed the extent of mass data collection was far greater than the public knew, and included "dangerous" and "criminal" activities in law.[12] The disclosures were published by The Guardian and The Washington Post on June 6, 2013. - Wikipedia

Madsen has spoken about data mining by Prism several times beginning in 2009 but not in as much detail as his 2013 interview. Wayne (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Wikipedia article on ECHELON says that a New Statesman article in 1988 is the first mention of ECHELON. Did Bamford mention ECHELON in 1982, or was it in a later edition? Capitalismojo (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A google search on the subject also finds a number of articles citing the New Statesman as being the ECHELON scoop. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't called ECHELON then, In 1982 Madsen and Hager were reporting on a NSA computer program called PLATFORM for use in UKUSA. In 1988 there was a congressional investigation into whistleblower allegations of domestic spying and it was revealed that PLATFORM was soon to be updated with new system code called ECHELON although the whistleblower stated that the NSA was at this time calling the entire computer network ECHELON. Officially, the surveillance project is called EMBROIDERY, the computer system is known as PLATFORM, the communications network is PATHWAY. Only the surveillance code is called ECHELON. To give an idea of how secret ECHELON is, the project is compartmented on a need to know basis with the lowest level security clearance having a higher security classification than Top Secret. In 1991 it was revealed that the program was called The Dictionary in England after several whistleblowers who worked for the GCHQ came forward complaining that the system was not being used for national security, but to eavesdrop on critics of the government. However, the system is not The Dictionary, each signatory country has it's own list of key words which are programmed into separate computers linked to the system which are all called The Dictionary for obvious reasons. In 1995, Madsen published an article about ECHELON in the Computer Fraud and Security Bulletin where he named nine ground stations that were part of the network. In 1996, Hager published a book on ECHELON involvement in New Zealand which was the first to actually detail exactly what ECHELON was and did. By this time Madsen had gone quiet on ECHELON after receiving death threats over his reporting on it, however, in 1998 Madsen testified before the Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security regarding the use of ECHELON by the White House to spy on Jack Terrell and Senator John Kerry during the Iran–Contra affair. In 1999, Australia became the first participating country to publically admit that ECHELON actually existed and operated as Hager claimed. The Wikipedia article on ECHELON is actually a bit lame. It says there are only five signatory states, that may have been true originally but today there are nine signatories as Norway, Denmark, Germany and Turkey have signed on although they are "third parties" with no responsibilities other than providing access to communications. The part on ground stations is similar lightweight, there are many more than listed and the army, navy and air force each individually control a number of "collection" stations while the CIA and NSA control the "interception" stations. Many overseas American Embassies are interception stations, these are codenamed Special Collection Elements. The article needs updating but it's not my area of interest so what I just posted can be used by an interested editor to find the sources to do it. Wayne (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, I gather from what you have said above that Madsen wasn't the first to write about ESCHELON. We have no RS that he was involved in any scoop about ESCHELON. He co-wrote an article that was referenced in the first edition of Puzzle Palace about a program which later became a part of ESCHELON but never used that name. That "scoop" essentially fails verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Author of Puzzle Palace[edit]

It has been suggested that Madsen is the "co-author" of the The Puzzle Palace, supposedly the 2001 edition. This is the definitive book on the NSA. If true it would be an important addition. Unfortunately it does not appear to be true. The copyright page for all available copies of the Puzzle Palace lists James Bamford as the sole author. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Bamford did come out with a second Puzzle Palace edition in 2001. ISBN 0140231161. It doesn't list Madsen as co-author. Bamford did, however, author a book copyrighted in 2001 that was released in April 2002 called Body of Secrets. It is about the NSA. There is an acknowledgement page in that James Bamford book. It does mention Madsen. There are four paragraphs of acknowledgements, listing 38 people. The first paragraph lists 9 people who "helped bring Body of Secrets to life". The second paragraph acknowledged the help of 16 people "who fought on the front lines of the cryptologic wars". Madsen is listed eighth. The final paragraphs list another 13 people who helped with the book. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 2001 Madsen was employed at Electronic Privacy Information Center which was involved in the early battles over government surveillance and cryptography issues. That would explain this acknowledgement or hat-tip. It does not, however, allow him to be characterized as a "co-author". That fails verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current edition is not on Google books for me to check but I have found a number of other books citing Puzzle Palace that list Madsen as a co-author. Wayne (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Madsen is not apparently shy about tooting his own horn. He has a biography on his blog that lists his books, including books co-authored. Puzzle Palace is not listed. That seems dispositive. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting and opinion section[edit]

Copied from from WP:BLP — The article subject has contacted the WMF requesting that the article be evaluated for content. In my opinion, the last section is just a coatrack of quotes and positions, without any actual structure. When viewed that way, I could see an argument that it is a violation of BLP. Would there by someone here who would be willing to take a look at this article? Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in the "Reporting and opinions" section need to be scrutinized individually with possibly the entire section deleted. The main problems are:
  • Entries irrelevant to the bio.
  • Mainstream views worded to make them look fringe.
  • Entries worded to make third party claims appear to be Madsen's own opinions.
  • Lack of context.
  • Lack of notable positive reporting.
Some entries are just wrong. For example, one states that Madsen "suggested" that the prosecution of Eliot Spitzer was partly due to intervention by Mossad. Reading the source shows that in the 644 word article discussing the prosecution of Spitzer, only 56 words refer to Madsen where, while he claims that US intelligence agencies believe the call girl service to be a front for Mossad, he believes that it was organized crime that outed him. Another entry implies that Madsen is a Birther when in fact he was the first journalist to publicly discredit the Kenyan birth certificate. Most entries are Madsen simply reporting what third parties have claimed, a type of entry that is not found in other journalists bios. Wayne (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What noteworthy reporting has been done by Madsen that isn't mentioned here? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reports that the Mayor of Chicago is a gay [14] Mossad agent[15]? Those were good. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Madsen describes how Emanuel, while in the Clinton Adminstration, sabotaged Clinton initiatives on behalf of Mossad. "It was the FBI that revealed Emanuel's intelligence work on behalf of the Mossad to President Clinton. Clinton then ordered Emanuel dismissed from the White House staff." Capitalismojo (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Madsen's reporting is not covered by mainstream media it is not notable enough, even then much of this is still not particularly notable. Blogs in mainstream media are not good enough. Reporting mainstream views is not notable, for example, Blackwater false flag ops. Ten year old reporting is not notable. Passing references to Madsen are not notable. I feel that only four or five of the current entries are possibly worth keeping. Wayne (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't entirely disagree with you. As I have mentioned here before, I also am concerned with notability. It would be helpful, however, if we could discuss the individual changes before running through vast changes. Consensus is a plus. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE my changes[16].

  • 1: This report was the result of Madsen working as an investigator for a law firm representing families who lost relatives in the 9/11 attacks. He was not acting in his role as an investigative reporter so I feel this is relevant. 2: I deleted the Bush administration claim because the article says Madsen only linked the government of Saudi Arabia to the financial transactions, not Bush. This is a correction of a false claim so must stay.
The ref specifically mentions Bush and Cheney. The role of "investigator" seems risible. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the ref mentions Bush, it says that Bush wont release the report. There is no mention that the Bush administration was involved in the financial transactions. Your opinion that we cant mention Madsen's role because you believe he is risible (a joke) is irrelevant, OR and extremely POV. Wayne (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he was risible. I said the role of "investigator" was. I mean, really? It's uneccesary and adds nothing. Who cares who he says he was working for, that is truly not the point. Its his claims that are notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As relates to Bush et al, Madsen is explicitly and clearly saying Bush and Cheney (and Bush Sr) are involved financially with the Saudis, who were involved with the hijackers. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the 9/11 hijackers. Madsen is simply saying that it might be embarrassing. The current version falsely implies that Madsen is accusing Bush and Cheney of aiding the hijackers. Wayne (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are implying nothing. We are reporting what Madsen said. I don't read it that way (that it has nothing to do with 9/11 hijackers), probably because Madsen has written about Bush involvement in 9/11 before and since. Example "By Wayne Madsen--Researchers and investigators have uncovered links between a Miami bank that collapsed in 2002 amid a fraud scandal that was highlighted by billions of dollars in questionable cash and fraudulent loans and money movements linked to the Bush family and businesses linked to funding pilot training for the 9-11 hijackers." So my reading that Madsen is implying it is probably correct. Moreover since it is just what Madsen said there is no problem with NPOV, we are not implying anything. He said it, we report it. What can be the problem? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1: The Telegraph article mentions assassinations and plane crashes with examples. Madsen never mentions accidents. An accident could be someone tripping and hitting their head so accuracy is important. 2: Madsen says "reportedly assassinated" not "actually murdered". These are two different things and it's POV to use "murder" when that is not what was said.
Assassination is murder, neh? Capitalismojo (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not use the word murder and murder is not the same as assassination. Murder is killing while assassination is killing for a political motive. Using the word murder is OR and POV. Wayne (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So...assassination is a sub-category of murder, but using the broader category is OR? I'm not sure about that but I'm fine with assassination. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paragraph reads as if Madsen was somehow involved in the birther conspiracy. Per the source I added that Madsen was the first to report on the GOP going to Kenya to find evidence against Obama and I also added Madsen's own belief regarding the birther conspiracy, again...per the source. Both I believe are relevant for NPOV.
He was involved in the conspiracy in the sense he apparently created the Kenyan birth certificate storyline. The fact that he discounts it should indeed be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously believe that the Republicans would not have used it if Madsen hadn't reported that they found it? Wayne (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I don't know that "the Republicans" would have "used it", or how. I do know that conspiracy theorists (some of whom were Republicans, some of whom are crazy) had a field day with it. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted this paragraph as Madsen was NOT quoted by the source as suggesting the prosecution was partly due to Mossad. He was quoted as suggesting the prosecution was due to organized crime which is not a notable claim. Not long after this interview it was revealed that Spitzer's prosecution was actually the result of an FBI investigation into the call girl service. The report is 10 years old and irrelevant.
Age doesn't make it irrelevant, but you are correct about mistating what Madsen says. I will change. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it relevant that Madsen reported that organized crime was involved? Wayne (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you wanted more context, I will take that bit (Russo-Israeli) out if you think it unimportant. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Madsen (supposedly an intelligence expert)accuses the Mossad of running the criminal prostitution ring as a front, the very criminal prostitution ring that entangled Spitzer. These are notable statements in an article about the Mossad playing a role in Spitzer's downfall. Removing the Mossad piece of his accusations is inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the source I added context for the claim for NPOV.
Which section/line does this refer to? Capitalismojo (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The USS Cole. Wayne (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ref the current formulation is more accurate. O'Neill isn't the source, an unnamed agent is supposed to be the source. By the way the link is dead (although there are other copies on the internet. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O'Neill was the source of the first comment and the unnamed agent the source for the second which is exactly what my edit said. Wayne (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the ref again. O'Neill is not the source. That is inaccurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I added context per the source for NPOV. It is reasonable to add the extent of the aid or we leave the reader wondering if the aid was a few cruise missiles or maybe only a congratulatory email.
This item is irrelevant anyway as it is a mainstream view. Two of the generals who backed the coup were trained in Georgia. Otto Reich met with Pedro Carmona several times before the coup. The American ambassador Charles Shapiro publicly referred to Carmona as Mr. President during the coup. Newsweek reported much the same as Madsen (sans Navy) from an interview they did with a senior US state department official. Even Condoleezza Rice has admitted publicly that the administration had contacts with "government officials" in South American countries to encourage them to overthrow Chavez. Wayne (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Madsen went further than "mainstream". The mainstream view is that the embassy staff spoke to opposition people. Madsen's assertion is that the military attache discussed making a coup. I have seen no such source about Rice, but even if true that doesn't dovetail with Madsens statements. The jamming of embassy communications is unlawful under the Vienna Conventions and a violation of consulate immunity the accusation is notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these edits do you have a problem with? Wayne (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to want the wording to reflect negatively on Madsen.
  • Your version: "contained information linking the September 11 attacks to the government of Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration through financial transactions with the hijackers" obviously implies that Bush was dealing with the hijackers. The source says: the "real fear is of exposing financial ties between some Saudi officials and the 9/11 hijackers, but also between those Saudi officials and US officials" which indicates the separation. You have reworded to imply that the Bush administration is involved in financial transactions with the hijackers based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Additionally you are rejecting mention that Madsen was commenting in his role as an investigator hired by a law firm representing families who lost relatives in the 9/11 attacks based on your own self admitted belief that Madsen is a joke as an investigator. That he was speaking in an official capacity rather than as a blogger is very notable.
  • Regarding the Spitzer paragraph, Madsen's entire mention in the ref is 56 words in a 644 word article where he states "The sources claim that Spitzer was ‘outed’ for his aggressiveness in attacking money launderers connected to Russian-Israeli organized crime syndicates and other Wall Street malfeasance." Last I heard Mossad was not a Russian-Israeli organized crime syndicate. Nowhere in the source does Madsen say that the outing was "partly due to Mossad." The source states that it was the Jewish Chronicle and several other sources that claimed that Mossad was responsible. You cannot conflate Madsen's agreement that the call girl service was a Mossad front with his claim regarding WHY Spitzer was outed. Madsen makes no claim regarding WHO outed him.
  • Regarding the Cole, my mistake, it was French Intelligence services who could find no connection. O'Neill stated that the Bush administration blocked his access to evidence so he could make no findings so both O'Neill and the French view should be mentioned for NPOV. Wayne (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait-photos or picture[edit]

For a Wikipedia article, a portrait-picture is always nice. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wayne Madsen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wayne Madsen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wayne_Madsen_(journalist)&oldid=1195557399"