text:
User:Leak watcher/Valerie Plame affair: New details uncovered

September 13, 2006

According to a March 1, 2006 redacted court document produced by Patrick Fitzgerald, I. Lewis Libby "indisputably" had knowledge of one of Robert Novak's sources for his column before Novak had publicly announced his identity. Libby had testified before a grand jury that he learned about Robert Novak writing a column about Joe Wilson and his wife before it was published, and that he had done so on July 10 or July 11.

By attempting to place names of persons involved in the case into the redacted spaces within the document, Wikinews editor leak watcher has concluded that a match based on spacing and appropriate font size can be made. From this, this contributor concludes that Karl Rove had told Libby about the Novak column several days before it was published. The document was an ex parte affidavit, meaning the document's contents were written by Patrick Fitzgerald under oath, and I. Lewis Libby did not have access to the document.

On July 11, according to the National Journal, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby met at the close of a White House senior staff meeting, coinciding with the date given in special prosecutor Fitzgerald's document. In Libby's indictment, it is noted that on July 10 or July 11, Libby spoke to a senior official in the White House, "Official A," who informed Libby of a conversation he had had with Robert Novak prior to the publication of his article on July 14.

Rove once said before a grand jury, according to The Washington Post , that Libby may have been his source for information concerning the status of Joe Wilson's wife as a CIA operative. It was reported in June 2006 that Rove will not face an indictment in the case when his legal team made a public announcement. One analyst then posited that Rove was not indicted because he had told the truth to the FBI regarding his role in the leak.

Robert Novak and Matthew Cooper calls
In a July 14, 2003 column, Robert Novak wrote that the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson was a CIA operative for weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials had said to Novak that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had an agreement with Niger to buy "yellowcake" uranium. Recent media inquiries have revealed the main source of Robert Novak's column to be former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Armitage confirmed to the New York Times he was the original source of Robert Novak. Novak has said that Karl Rove confirmed his other source's claims.

According to the Boston Globe, I. Lewis Libby wrote in his waiver of his confidentiality to Judith Miller, "As noted above, my lawyer confirmed my waiver to other reporters in just the way he did with your lawyer. Why? Because as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call."

Because Libby knew other reporters had known Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA by the time of the phone call between Libby and Miller, if Libby is truthful in his waiver, Libby's phone conversation with Miller would have identified Joe Wilson's wife by her name for the first time using information he had gotten from Karl Rove, who had in turn heard the name from Robert Novak.

Bob Woodward learned about Joe Wilson's wife being a CIA operative from Richard Armitage on June 13, according to media reports and redacted portions of Fitzgerald's affidavit that had been edited based on context and the amount of text that would fit in blank spaces left by redactions. However, it is not known if Armitage mentioned Plame by name, and even if Armitage had, Libby still would not have known so before the waiver was signed.

According to another edited portion of the Fitzgerald affitavit, and other court documents from the case, Libby received a transcript of Woodward's conversation with Armitage, with Armitage's name redacted, under the legal process of discovery some time between early January 2006 and March 1, 2006. The July 12 contact with Miller is the only time the Libby indictment mentions they had talked by telephone rather than by meeting.

The July 9 phone call lasted fifteen or twenty minutes and originally concerned a separate column on the appointment of Frances Fragos Townsend as deputy national security advisor for terrorism, according to one Washington Post source. When Novak said he had learned Wilson's wife is a CIA operative at the end of the conversation, Rove responded, "I've heard that, too." The source for the Washington Post article says the call happened in the week before Novak published his column, according to White House call logs, aligning with the National Journal's claim the call happened on July 9.

Bill Harlow, who had been a CIA spokesman in July 2003, said in a July 2005 interview with the Washington Post that he had testified before the grand jury one year earlier that at least three days before Novak published the column, Novak had a conversation with him in which he said that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. After Novak's call, Harlow checked Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent and confirmed her status was as an undercover operative, but could not tell she was undercover because the status was classified.

On July 11, according to Cooper's own account, Matthew Cooper called Karl Rove, who had been in his White House office in Washington, D.C. according to Cooper's memory that the call had gone through a White House switchboard, for information relating to the essay written by Joe Wilson titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa". During the conversation, Rove allegedly indicated that Wilson's wife worked for the "agency," that she worked on "WMD issues," and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. On July 12, I. Lewis Libby and Matthew Cooper held a phone conversation. During the conversation, when Cooper asked if he had heard anything about her being sent to Niger, "Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that too,' or words to that effect." At the end of his article, Matthew Cooper noted that during the phone conversation, Rove informed him that "things would be declassified soon."

The memo to Colin Powell
Meanwhile, from July 7 to July 12, members of the Bush administration had been taking a trip to Africa on board the Air Force One. According to separate accounts in The Washington Post and The Associated Press, the memo was taken by Powell on board the plane and circulated amongst its passengers: President Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Andrew Card, Ari Fleischer, and other top aides.

Associated Press sources have said Richard Armitage ordered the head of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Carl Ford, to send the memo to Colin Powell on July 6, and it arrived on board the Air Force One on July 7. The Washington Post "current and former government official" sources make no mention of Armitage in this role, but do say Ford had been asked for the memo to be sent the memo on July 6, and he changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.

The name "Armitage" was put into parts of the document relating to June phone interviews with Bob Woodward, which aligned with the Associated Press article mentioning that he had met with Bob Woodward on June 13, 2003, and another recent article by The Washington Post uses sources claiming he had accidentally let the information that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA slip during the conversation with Woodward, before a separate phone conversation with Robert Novak about a month later. It was claimed in late 2005 by the Associated Press , the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post that Armitage had been "out of the country," or "traveling," during June, with Colin Powell, causing him to be excluded from speculation.

On June 10, three days before the Woodwood-Armitage phone conversation, Powell had been in Buenos Aires, Chile. According to sources of an August 2005 Time article, Powell had already read the memo in mid-June. According to an article in The Los Angeles Times entitled "A CIA Cover Blown, a White House Exposed" by Tom Hamburger and Sonni Efron, published on August 25, 2005, after Armitage had read a June 12 The Washington Post story, Armitage requested of intelligence officers in the Department of State that more information be given to him. The article says, "He was forwarded a copy of a memo classified "Secret" that included a description of Wilson's trip for the CIA, his findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference to 'Wilson's wife.'" According to the sources used in the Time article, Powell did not tell the White House about the memo until after July 6.

Approximately one month after the phone conversation with Bob Woodward, Richard Armitage spoke to Robert Novak and stated during the phone conversation that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. While Richard Armitage professes that he did so in an offhand way, Robert Novak has recently criticized Richard Armitage for distorting the events to make it look as if the disclosure was more casual.

According to Armitage, it was on October 1, 2003 that he realized he had accidentally mentioned Valerie Wilson's name to Robert Novak, and he then telephoned Colin Powell, before they later discussed the matter with the top State Department lawyer. On September 28, 2003, The Washington Post had reported that the Department of Justice had been doing a criminal investigation into the administration leak at the request of CIA Director George Tennet.

Court documents show that on September 29, John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to CIA Director George Tennet asking if the CIA had any contacts with the Department of Justice to request an investigation into the disclosure of a CIA employee's identity. The CIA director of congressional affairs wrote back, on the request of George Tennet, that on July 30 a CIA attorney left a message with the Chief of the Counterintelligence Section expressing concern with news articles related to the disclosure of that employee's identity, and on July 30 the CIA had informed the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

John Conyers, in December 2005, introduced two bills, H. Res. 636 and H. Res. 637, that would censor the President and Vice President, respectively, "based on indisputable evidence of unaccounted for misstatements and abuse of power in the public record." According to the THOMAS section of the Library of Congress website, the first bill had 17 sponsors, while the second bill had 18 sponsors, as of September 4, 2006.

On April 28, 2005, Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior advisor to Bill Clinton, wrote in The Guardian that staff members of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee believed Ambassador John Bolton had been spying on Colin Powell. John Bolton had then been the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security with the title of "Senior Adviser to the President and the Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament." The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee discovered Bolton had gained access to 10 intercepts of conversations by the National Security Agency, which monitors government official conversations.

At the time, Powell had opposed John Bolton's appointment as U.N. ambassador to the United Nations, The Guardian had reported five days earlier. Blumenthal's account stated Richard Armitage orchestrated much of the action against John Bolton. Carl W. Ford, Jr., who had sent the memo in the first place, described Bolton as a "serial abuser." Angering the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Condoleezza Rice refused to release the intercepts Bolton obtained. John Bolton was later appointed to the position of U.S. ambassador in a recess appointment.

Fleischer's role
Ari Fleischer had already been told on July 7 by I. Lewis Libby that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, according to Libby's indictment, which only mentions him by his former title of White House Press Secretary. Ari Fleischer was reported by Bloomberg as having seen the July 7 memo, and Andrea Mitchell said on the MSNBC program Hardball with Chris Matthews on October 11 that "Ari Fletcher" had seen the memo, according to an October 12 transcript. Bloomberg also claimed their sources had told them that at that time, the investigation had been expanded from investigating to see whether a 1982 law prohibiting knowingly revealing the identity of a CIA agent that had worked overseas within five years, to investigating whether officials, including Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer, that had already testified had falsely testified or obstructed justice.

Like with Rove, the investigation on Fleischer seems to have already finished, if there was such one. The New York Times reported in July 2006 that Libby is the only administration member left under scrutiny. In a letter dated March 31, 2006, though, Libby's lawyers write that they believe Ari Fleischer will be called as a government witness.

In a recent June 2006 court document, the judge presiding over the case, Reggie B. Walton, has said that the 1982 law only has "peripheral pertinence to this case," and the only question the jury will be asked to answer is if Libby intentionally lied when he testified before the grand jury and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Miller's notes and Miller's waiver
While President Bush's trip lasted from July 7 to July 12, according to a source used by the Washington Post familiar with Libby's account of his conversation, Libby had met with Judith Miller to interview him about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq on July 8. When Miller asked why Wilson was picked to investigate whether Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger, Libby replied "the White House was working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected." The source said I. Lewis Libby, on that day, did not know where Wilson's wife worked, but according to Miller's account of her own notes in a New York Times article, when he spoke with Miller on July 8, he expressed a belief she worked at the CIA. In her notes, Miller wrote the name "Valerie Flame," and told Patrick Fitzgerald she could not remember where the name came from, when it was written, or the reason it was misspelled, but she said she did not believe it came from Libby because it was not written in the part of Miller's notebook as the notes from her interviews with him.

Libby, according to Miller's notes for June 23, denied that the vice president ever knew of Joe Wilson, what he did, or what he said, and the "agency" had not reported to them. Miller also wrote, "Wife works in bureau?", when Libby allegedly said Wilson's wife may work at a bureau of the CIA, according to I. Lewis Libby's indictment.

Libby's indictment states he learned from Dick Cheney on July 12 what CIA division Wilson worked in, and understood Cheney had learned this from the CIA, but because Libby's conversation with Miller had happened earlier, he would have learned where in the CIA she worked independently. Although during the June conversation with Miller, Libby had been allegedly dissatisfied that President Bush may have made inaccurate statements based on CIA intelligence on Iraq, during the July 8 phone call Libby he questioned the credibility of Wilson's findings by noting 2002 and 1999 reports. Notes taken on July 12 included the name "Victoria Wilson" written inside a box.

According to a court document written under oath, "Mr. Libby had received more information than the Vice President because the CIA was responding to Mr. Libby's questions or providing supplemental information on subjects in which he had expressed an interest previously."

The National Intelligence Estimate document
The memorandum itself that Colin Powell received is three pages long, and Plame, referred to by the name Valerie Wilson, is mentioned in the second paragraph of the document. The information concerning Valerie Wilson takes up two sentences of the seven sentence long paragraph, according to a The Washington Post article. The New York Sun obtained a declassified copy of the document, in which one of the two sentences is revealed, but the other is redacted. The sentence says, "In a February 19, 2002, meeting convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD manager, and the wife of Joe Wilson, he previewed his plans and rationale for going to Niger."

The document was marked with the words SECRET, NOFORN, and ORCON. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Security Guide, this meant that its dissemination could reasonably be expected seriously damage national security if done without authorization, the information may not be allowed to be passed to foreign officials, and any additional distribution or dissemination of the document is controlled by its originator.

According to the Department of State's guide to the meaning of codes used in giving justification for classification of documents, the document was classified because it revealed intelligence activities (including special activities), sources or methods, or cryptology, and it revealed foreign relations of the United States, including confidential sources. When it was originally classified, it was exempted from automatic declassification within 10 years, under Section 1.6 of Executive Order 12958, because its dissemination would reveal an intelligence source, method or activity, or a cryptologic system or activity.

I. Lewis Libby's indictment claims that after Libby asked an Under Secretary of State for information about Joe Wilson's trip on May 29, 2003, that Under Secretary of State, (Marc Isaiah Grossman, according to CNN sources ) directed the Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report on the trip, and meanwhile the Under Secretary provided Libby with oral reports. Libby once requested that he be provided with all documents relating to his morning intelligence briefings, and his notes from May 6, 2003 until March 24, 2004. The Associated Press reported on August 10, 2006 that Libby had been provided summaries of his daily briefings by the CIA. Until August 2006, Libby had had difficulty obtaining his morning briefings because they contained sensitive intelligence. According to an affidavit by a CIA officer, many of them were with the Vice President.

The July 12 phone calls
On July 12, Libby flew on board the Air Force Two with Dick Cheney to Norfolk, Virginia from Washington, D.C. and back in the same day, according to an October 2005 The Washington Post article. During that time, it is alleged in his indictment that Libby discussed with "other officials" aboard the plane that July 12 how to handle "pending media inquiries" about Joe Wilson, including questions from Matthew Cooper. Libby's indictment places his phone call with Cooper on that July 12 afternoon. In the article, the only officials other than Libby on board the plane are Dick Cheney and Catherine Martin, a press aide. While Cheney and Libby were in Norfolk, Dick Cheney commissioned the USS Ronald Reagan as he stood aboard its deck. This is confirmed by the White House website and the website of the USS Ronald Reagan.

On July 12, also according to his indictment , Libby also expounded upon a statement he had allegedly already said to Judith Miller on July 8. According to the indictment, on June 23, Libby said he believed Wilson's wife worked at a bureau of the CIA, on July 8, Libby said he believed Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, and on July 12 in the late afternoon he had contacted Judith Miller by telephone and told her she worked at the CIA. Also according to his indictment, he had made a false statement under his grand jury testimony that he had learned the information from other reporters.

July 12, 2003 is the date Libby has claimed since at least mid-April 2006 to have been the day Cheney authorized a leak of a CIA report, after having shifted his position in his grand jury testimony. Four out of five of Libby's charges involve false statements or perjury concerning his conversations with journalists Tim Russert and Matthew Cooper, while the remaining one is for obstruction of justice. According to a recent New York Times report, Libby is taking the defense that he did not lie willingly under oath.

Libby's legal team argued in March 2006 that Libby had simply forgotten he had mentioned to Judith Miller where Joe Wilson's wife worked, and his indictment overemphasized the amount of importance Libby and other government officials had attributed to Valerie Plame's employment status, and they were more concerned with publicly disputing the report by Joe Wilson. They contended the indictment should have focused more on whether or not he lied by saying he learned Plame's identity from reporters, rather than leaking her status as a CIA agent, which he was not charged with.

In a June 2006 court document, it is reported that Libby currently contends that any discussions he had with government officials and news reporters were legitimately conducted solely for rebutting the accuracy and the merits of Joe Wilson's findings.

He also contended that government officials were more focused on making counterarguements to reporters that Wilson was not sent by Dick Cheney to Niger, and before the President's State of the Union address, the report was not shared with Dick Cheney or any senior officials in the White House. I. Lewis Libby's lawyers claim only declassified information was disseminated, , and Matthew Cooper claimed in his Time column that Karl Rove stated that "things" would be declassified soon. Dick Cheney would have been able to declassify the information before Libby leaked it on July 12, using powers he said had been granted to him by an executive order, during a FOX News interview. This executive order, Executive Order 13292, was given by President Bush on March 25, 2003, amending Executive Order 12958. When Dick Cheney was asked if he had ever declassified information unilaterally, he responded, "I don't want to get into that."

In Patrick Fitzgerald's affidavit, he writes, "Moreover, Mr. Russert and Mr. Kessler have each published accounts of their absence of conversations with Libby about Wilson and his wife. And while Libby cites Andrea Mitchell's account implying that she knew about Wilson’s wife before July 14, there is a later statement by NBC that she did not." I. Lewis Libby's indictment says that he had said to the Federal Bureau of Investigation the false statements that he learned the identity of Joe Wilson's wife from Tim Russert on July 10 or July 11, that Russert said "all the reporters" already knew Plame's identity, and that Libby was "surprised to hear" Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. A Newsweek article dated August 1, 2006 has already reported that in a deal cut between Patrick Fitzgerald and Tim Russert, NBC made a statement last year that "he did not provide that information to Libby." The author of the Newsweek article said that his source was close to Karl Rove and the source had requested anonymity because the FBI asked participants not to comment publicly. The FBI interview happened October 10, 2003, according to Libby's attorneys.

According to the information in the Fitzgerald affidavit, when edited, "July 10 or July 11", the same days Libby says he remembers meeting Karl Rove, were the days Libby had earlier told the grand jury that he had remembered talking to Russert. The New York Times reported on October 25, 2005, three days before the Libby indictment, that Libby had learned Plame's identity from taking notes during a June 12 conversation with Dick Cheney, rather than from journalists, using lawyers involved in the case as sources. If the sources of the New York Times article had spoken the truth, this would mean Libby would have already known Joe Wilson's wife's role by the date Libby's indictment alleges he had a phone conversation with Tim Russert concerning Libby's portrayal in the media.

According to MSNBC News Services , an attorney "knowledgable about the case" has stated to them that President Bush did not tell Cheney specifically to use Libby to leak information, but he directed Cheney to "get it out."

Note from the author
Redacted information in the document was revealed by simply having Microsoft Paint emulate the font and text size used in Fitzgerald's document by typing over unredacted words he had written. Then I proceeded to fill in the few possible names that would fit the context of surrounding words until one fit inside the empty space left by the redaction. The redacted affidavit by Patrick Fitzgerald is available for Internet access in several different places, such as on the white collar crime section of a blogging network for law professors. The section in particular is maintained by Peter J. Henning, who is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University Law School, and Ellen S. Podgor, who is the Associate Dean of Faculty Development & Distance Education and a Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law.


text:
New Democrat MP disagrees with Layton's call to withdraw from Afghanistan

September 2, 2006

leader 's call to withdraw the 2,000 Canadian troops stationed in Afghanistan by February 2007 has not been universally greeted by his.

NDP  of  said his views were more in line with those expressed by  defence critic  who supports keeping troops in Afghanistan but altering their mission. Stoffer represents a riding that includes a large military base.

"To be honest with you, Mr. Dosanjh got it right the other day when he said just to extend the mission for two years without a proper debate and a plan is wrong, but to do an immediate pullout, or a very quick pullout, is also wrong, Stoffer said to the  adding "without a comprehensive plan, what are you pulling out for? What are you leaving behind?"

Layton said on Thursday that Canada must withdraw its troops as there is no "comprehensive strategy to achieve peace", no clear goals and no exit strategy. He has also called for negotiations with the.

In another interview, Stoffer said, "I think just to ask for a pullout right now may be a bit early."

"You just can't say, 'Well, we're going to stay in Afghanistan for two more years' without a plan. And I don't think you can say, 'We'll pull out right away or in February' without a plan. I think both elements of that discussion should be more comprehensive in their approach," he added.

In May, MPs voted narrowly 149 to 145 to extend the mission in Afghanistan by two years. At the time Stoffer voted against extending the mission. 28 Canadian soliders and one diplomat have died since the mission began four years ago.

The disagreement within the NDP caucus comes as the party prepares for its policy convention in later this week.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:Leak watcher

Libby article
Hi Leak, Mind moving the links to "sources"? -- Zanimum 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi there, Thank you for the great work on Libby learned from Rove about Novak article early. One little thing though. In future, could you please upload images that you made yourself to wikimedia . This way all of Wikimedia can use them. Thanks. Also if you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is unfair of me to characterize Doldrums as having a bias here against news stories that are less than 'Breaking news'. Magazine-like articles such as the Libby story are also published here too.

During the press conference when the Libby indictment was announced, Fitzgerald use a baseball metaphor to liken the Libby actions to that of, "throwing sand in the face of an umpire." How does this article, and the redacted names of Rove and Armitage, relate to the 5-count Libby indictment? That's the speculative problem with the article. 'News' does not equal 'Speculation'. Libby knowing something doesn't mean he broke the law with that knowledge. -Edbrown05 03:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He allegedly lied to the FBI on October 10, 2003 by saying he had learned the information from reporters, namely Tim Russert, Ronald Kessler, Andrea Mitchell, and perhaps Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, based on court documents I've seen. Also, I didn't ever say Libby ever broke the law, nor did I deny. I noted that he contends the Valerie Wilson's name was declassified when he disseminated it. With regard to whether he intentionally lied to the grand jury, I also noted Libby's arguements in court that he simply had a faulty memory because it was farther from his mind than other things at the time. Leak watcher 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Right, so the jury will decide. -Edbrown05 06:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Why isn't some variation from two paragraph's above, if this argument is so strong, the lead to the story. -Edbrown05 06:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I now think every single bit of information is important, from the first sentence to the last, and that the article should be at a name other than "Libby learned from Rove about Novak article early" to reflect this. The information in the first paragraph is essential to the rest of the information, though, and makes the best starting point and lead-in, in my opinion. What do you suggest the new article title should be? What do you think of "Valerie Plame scandal: New details uncovered"? Can I publish the article an hour from now? Leak watcher 06:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * What? And bore the rest of your world with you speculation? Libby broke the law? Yer kidding fer sure! -Edbrown05 07:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I say nowhere in the article whether or not Libby broke the law. I only identify two, or maybe three, sentences of the article as speculation, which I will now remove. I thank Wikinews for holding me to high standards. Leak watcher 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I gota roll off, thinking when a court decision comes in on this case, (he will be innocent) i mean what a fuck-toid. later and at u -Edbrown05 07:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Google earth images
Unfortunately the images from google earth you uploaded are not fair use on Wikinews, only on WIkipedia. You will have to contact the copyright holders of the images to ask for permission to use them. Also images uploaded to Wikinews are usually only uploaded if the intent is to use them in articles, otherwise they should be uploaded to commons. Jason Safoutin 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leak watcher


text:
Talk:Mexican ruling boosts Calderon, rival vows parallel government

MÉXICO IS LOCATED IN NORTH AMERICA

The United Mexican States (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos), generally known as Mexico (Spanish: México) is a country located in North America, bordered at the north by the United States, and at the south by Guatemala and Belize, in Central America. It is the northernmost and westernmost country in Latin America, and also the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world.

FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico


text:
User talk:Leak watcher/Valerie Plame affair: New details uncovered

back to develop

 * 1) headline is misleading: all the article substantiates is that one may infer, on what appears to be thin evidence (text fits, meetings) that  Libby learned from Rove - not enough for the categorical assertion the title makes. headline reports an event that occured in 3/1/2006 - not exactly news.
 * 2) it is not clear what the news event being reported is. much of the article is a compilation of old background, whose relevance to the news event is unclear - eg. why is Libby's defence strategy relevant?
 * 3) if the article is going to make a claim, then it needs to get a response from the people involved, or atleast report faithfully their stated position on the event.
 * 4) the lead paragraph should summarise the content of the article, and report on the 5Ws.
 * 5) other than the text-fitting thing, it is not clear from the rest of the article what other evidence is reported which substantiates the claim that Rove is the other source. if all such evidence is gathered together into one or two paragraphs and clearly identified, it'll help editors (such as this one) to better judge the merit of the claims. Doldrums 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For 5, the National Journal reported Libby and Rove met at the end of a senior White House meeting on July 11, and Libby and Rove meeting on that date fits the context of the document. For 2, old background is compiled in order to inform the reader that has not been keeping constant track of news reports relating to the case. For 3, potential sources close to Rove and Libby should be contacted, but unfortunately such sources are inaccessable to me. For 4, the National Journal sentence can be moved to the first or second paragraph, if you wish.

For 1, the Washington Post once reported that Libby and Rove met in the days before Novak wrote his column to discuss convesations they had with reporters, according to their source. Lastly, parts of Fitzgerald's memo that were not even redacted say Libby learned from Rove before the column came out. Is this enough evidence, or does the headline still need to be changed? In any case, the headline can be attributed to the unredacted part of the March 1, 2006 document, but the new information comes from the parts revealed through my editing techniques. Leak watcher 05:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

newsworthiness
from discussions i had with the author of the article, i understand that the new information in the article is an inferencee that Libby learnt from Rove on a particular date - July 10/11 (that Libby learnt from Rove itself appears to be old news). this inference is based on the "text-fitting" and prior information from testimony and news reports. i do not understand the significance of the new information and why it is newsworthy. i suggest that the lead paragraphs be reworded to make it clear what is the new information and what is not, and why the new information is newsworthy. Doldrums 06:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Doldrums. This article appears to be background research in search of a news event. Has something happened we ought to know about? -Edbrown05 06:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please hit me over the head with it so I will understand. -Edbrown05 06:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For one, the same set of days Libby thinks he might have met Karl Rove according to testimony after his indictment matches the testimony he gave before his indictment that he learned the information from Tim Russert, who Libby testified had said that "all the reporters know" Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Russert denied having told Libby that in his testimony, and according to Fitzgerald, Libby's other alleged sources for the information testified or publicly wrote they didn't, either. It is claimed in his indictment Libby made false statements to the FBI regarding his source before his indictment. After his indictment he began to say he learned the information from Cheney.

Also now in the article---I had had it in my head, but did not think the names were important at the time---were two new names of reporters claimed Libby may have contacted that seem not to be known in the media or shown in Libby's indictment. The Fitzgerald affidavit section seems to suggest Libby claimed prior to his indictment he learned the information about Plame being a CIA operative from Tim Russert, Ronald Kessler, Andrea Mitchell, and perhaps Cooper and Miller.

Secondly, I just put together information that three newspapers reported Armitage was out of the country with Colin Powell with information that the Department of State reported Powell was in Santiago, Chile on June 10, 2006, and information that the sources of Time claimed Colin Powell had read the National Intelligence Estimate memo in mid-June.

From this, I infer that if the Los Angeles Times report that State Department intelligence officers sent Armitage the memo, and if the Associated Press report that Armitage ordered Carl Ford to send Colin Powell the memo is true, and if Armitage gave Powell the memo while they were both in Buenos Aires, Argentina, then the sources of the Washington Post story by Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei lied.

I can have the Washington Post look at the Wikinews article and look for a confirmation of information in here, perhaps? Leak watcher 09:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not unless you trust someone at the post, otherwise they could/would steal our material Jason Safoutin 11:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already left an e-mail with the Washington Post. I noticed that according to the source I had used for the Washington Post account, I made the mistake of confusing "Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell" as "Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements by Powell." With that corrected, the Washington Post article fits neatly into the timeline in the Wikinews article now. I also updated the Wikinews article with information that, according to the Time article, Powell did not inform the White House of the memo until after July 6, meaning the memo passed around the Air Force One may have originally been from Armitage. I contacted the Washington Post and asked them if they could independently confirm using their sources that Powell received the memo from Armitage while they were together in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

This Wikinews article could or should go ahead and be published now, as its content has changed substantially since earlier. Leak watcher 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Publishing
I've updated the content a lot in the past day or so, and if no one has any objections now, I'd like to go ahead and release the article. If no one has any objections by nine hours from now, I'm going to go ahead and try publishing it. Is this okay? Leak watcher 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article makes no sense and offers no insight. Sorry I'm so stupid. -Edbrown05 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The information that Libby learned the identity of Joe Wilson's wife from Karl Rove is new, as is the information that Armitage and Powell were both out of the country when Armitage was given the document by Department of State intelligence officials, according to a June 12 date given by the Los Angeles Times, and they had been in Buenos Aires, Argentina two days before then. The following day, Armitage leaked the information to Bob Woodward accidentally. Is there anything that can be done, in your opinion, to improve the article? Leak watcher 08:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

more comments
some minor issues:
 * lead paragraph does not indicate when the event - the court document being made public, happened. according to the source info provided, the document has been public for months, so this information is not news.
 * "names known to be involved can be easily placed..." does not indicate that the placing is speculation.
 * "the date of Libby learning from about novak's article, which i was told by the author was news information, is also old news - it too is present in the affidavit.

the major issue: i am yet to figure out what news event this article is reporting on and whether the speculation that it advances, by calling Rove the unknown person who informed libby of novak's article at a particular date is well supported by evidence. And so i cannot agree to its publication. Doldrums 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have worked out the issue with Doldrums in an IRC channel, and Doldrums has told me that he has no objection to the article being published, nor has he any support. When I asked if he has even read the entire article, he stated that he did not wish to express the effort to work to help edit the article's contents. Leak watcher 08:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sections
Its very cool that someone sought out to explain all these subtle details, but can you please make it easier to read, say by adding sections with openning paragraphs giving rough explanations? It'll really help this story get the information across & people will read more if section breaks & summaries alllow them to lose focus & then return to serious reading. Nyarlathotep 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem
here is the main problem highlighted. What credibility does this more accurate version of the article have than one which implies the textual analysis was done by someone who could be considered an expert in the field? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-sourcing, rambling, etc.
I haven't tried to read through the whole thing. But the rambling section on "Aspen" alone is reason enough not to "publish" this. We get to learn that Aspen is named after a type of tree, thanks to the American Heritage Dictionary, and that Wolfowitz was not mentioned in a high school history textbook. The coordinates of Aspen and Jackson Hole? What? We get apparently extraneous details about a professor Wolfowitz and Wilson once shared, as well as the professor's connections. I don't see any reason why these details are necessary—it stinks of conspiracy theorist thinking which thinks that any connection is a worthwhile connection (when you are talking about high-powered east coast people, you will find lots and lots of connections; the circles of people who go to Harvard and Yale and end up either in politics or business have huge amounts of overlap, for obvious reasons). The addition of lots of useless sources in the attempt to make it look respectable (the high school textbook, the dictionary) only serve to make it look even more desperate, much less all of the junk about staying in Aspen.

For the record, I think that the redaction additions are actually plausible. The names do seem to fit and it seems reasonable possible that they could be the ones mentioned. However I'm not sure that particular fact is worthy of anything but a blog post. The rest of the article seems like conspiracy mongering. The fact that it is 7,000 words long doesn't help anything. If the author really wants this to be a publishable article they will need to edit it down to the BASICS, the FEW NEW FACTS this is supposed to contain and their relevance to the IMMEDIATE issue. This is NOT the place to launch into an elaborate conspiracy theory, and adding details does NOT make it look more plausible—it only makes its sophistry more blatant. --Fastfission 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My reply is below. In short, read the entire 16 page article and examine the sourcing before you judge. Please respond swiftly. This needs to go out soon, and failure to read it shows incompetence      as an editor. Anonymous Writing 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

removing tags
please do not remove tags without addressing the concerns raised in them. if u think the concerns are not valid, discuss on the article talk page to reach a concensus on the issues. Doldrums 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I left the reason in my edit summary. The person that raised the concerns did not examine my sources or read the whole article before judging. I would have liked them to start from the beginning before  questioning the content. Anonymous Writing 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * please do not remove tags, and publish disputed articles. a number of editors have raised concerns over the content and fitness of this article. unless the concerns are addressed and there is a consensus to publish the article, please do not publish it. note that repeated reversions are considered edit warring and is frowned upon. (see Three revert rule. Doldrums 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted you, I thought my edit had not gone through due to a glitch in the system. I cannot edit Wikinews much at this time for reasons I cannot explain due to privacy issues. The story is not   abandoned, and do not delete it, please.

Also, "a number" is not accurate because I convinced the others to let me go ahead and publish the article, because only one editor's concerns have not been replied to until now, in the edit summary. I should not have to prove the legitimacy of an article to "editors" that refuse to read it, take one quick glance at it, and dismiss it as utter garbage. Those that know nothing will understand nothing. Read the article and become enlightened on the issue. Anonymous Writing 07:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I had been so busy writing this article I nearly abandoned food, sleep, water, and bathing. I stayed   awake for a week typing the article, thinking through my fingers and providing more than seventy sources to prove its legitimacy. Please do not throw the article recklessly into the waste bin, the memory hole, for it never to return. Anonymous Writing 07:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * a story in the mainspace is abandoned if it has not been worked on for several days and will be deleted for it. if u believe that the story can be "rescued", u can either start rewriting the article to address concerns (in which case it becomes un-abandoned) or copy the article to ur user-space (ur user page User:Anonymous Writing or a subpage of it) and work on it at leisure (while the mainspace article gets deleted). when the copy in ur userspace is ready for publication, it can be moved back to mainspace for publication. note that removing an abandoned tag without making any constructive edits to the article does not make it "unabandoned".

i appreciate that you have expended plenty of effort in creating this article, but the article still has to meet wikinews content guidelines to be published. as far as i can tell, me, User:Edbrown05, User:FactFission, User:Brian McNeil have expressed concerns over this article. Doldrums 07:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I convinced Edbrown05 on the talk page of User:Leak watcher. As for Brian McNeil's complaint, that     an amateur working alone with enough persistence and patience can be as good as an expert was the            entire spirit behind a wiki, I always thought. I interpreted it as a complaint against the person that made another edit. That it is too long to read is not a valid complaint, I feel, and is merely a symptom of laziness. I broke            the article down into many sections so that the reader can keep coming back to it later between breaks. Anonymous Writing 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As for facts, nearly every fact is new in the context of the situation. Anonymous Writing 07:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed bad section
I removed the section invoking FastFission's complaint. Is it more suitable for publishing now? Leak watcher 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

should it be tagged with template:editorial?
Bawolff ☺☻ 08:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:NATO plane crashes in southern Afghanistan, killing 14 British troops

is cat:Obituaries appriate here?


text:
"Low pathogenic" H5N1 Bird Flu virus found in wild ducks in Maryland and Pennsylvania

September 2, 2006

The United States Department of Agriculture has announced that a "low pathogenic" form of the H5N1 Avian Flu has been found in fecal samples taken from wild Mallard ducks located in Queen Anne's County in Maryland and in Crawford County located in Pennsylvania. Officials stress that the strain is of no risk to humans. Samples from the ducks in Pennsylvania were taken on August 28.

"Testing has ruled out the possibility of this being the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain that has spread through birds in Asia, Europe and Africa. Test results thus far indicate this is low pathogenic avian influenza, which poses no risk to human health. The fecal samples were collected on August 2 from resident wild ducks in Queen Anne's County, Maryland, as part of a research project conducted by Ohio State University. The fecal samples came from mallards that showed no signs of sickness," said the USDA in a statement on its website. Ducks in Pennsylvania also had shown no signs of being sick.

"Additional testing at NVSL will confirm the pathogenicity of the virus. These results are expected within two weeks and will be made public when completed. It should be noted that wild birds are known to harbor many influenza viruses, and the finding of these viruses during routine testing is not unusual," added the statement.

Officials also state that there is no threat to the U.S. chicken industry.

"There is nothing in international rules that would indicate this low-pathogenic bird flu case being a problem" for the poultry industry in the U.S said, director of communications with the National Chicken Council, Richard Lobb, but some poultry groups are worried that some countries may impose sanctions on American chickens.

This is the second time this year a low pathogenic strain of the Bird Flu has been found in the U.S.. Two wild swans in Michigan tested positive for the same strain on August 14.

Since 1975, the same strain has shown up at least six times in the U.S.


text:
Football: England beat Andorra in their first Euro 2008 qualifier

September 2, 2006

The England football team's first Euro 2008 qualification match against Andorra finished 5-0 with victory going to the home nation. It was Steve McClaren's first competitive game as Manager after replacing Sven-Göran Eriksson at the beginning of August.

Peter Crouch, in continued good form, opened the scoring after 4 minutes with a close range shot past Koldo (the Andorran goalkeeper). Eight minutes later Liverpool FC captain Steven Gerrard double the score with a half volley on the edge of the box. England went to the dressing room at half time 3-0 up after Jermain Defoe scored a third goal eight minutes before the end of the half. Soon after the break England scored twice more, the first from a Defoe header off a cross from Phillip Neville (brought in to replace his brother Garry Neville who usually plays right-back). Crouch got his second goal in the just after the hour mark (another header, this time from an Aron Lennons cross) to end the scoring. Owen Hargreaves was noted for his continued consistent form (as was Peter Crouch), hitting the post twice - once from a free kick suggesting he may be a worthwhile replacement for Beckham (who was recently dropped from the squad).

Andorra had a very poor game, raising concerns over their suitability for entry to the competition, and never managed a full attack or shot on the England goal.

Before the match England had suffered injury worries with strikers Michael Owen out long term and Wayne Rooney suspended. They were also missing Joe Cole, Gary Neville and Rio Ferdinand from the side.

England's next qualifying match will be against Macedonia on Wednesday night.

England: Robinson, Neville, Brown, Terry, Cole, Gerrard, Hargreaves, Lampard, Downing, Crouch, Defoe. Subs: Kirkland, Dawson, Carrick, Richardson, Lennon, Bent, Johnson.

Andorra: Alvarez, Antoni Lima, Garcia Luena, Ayala, Sonejee, Javi Sanchez, Sivera, Vieira, Silva, Pujol, Ruiz. Subs: Alfonso Sanchez, Juli Sanchez, Moreno, Jimenez, Garcia, Rubio, Fernandez.

Referee: Bernhard Brugger (Austria)


text:
User talk:67.20.105.37

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Jason Safoutin 20:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:67.20.105.37


text:
User talk:203.116.61.164

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Jason Safoutin 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:203.116.61.164


text:
Former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon moved out of ICU

September 2, 2006

Former Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, 78, has been moved out of the intensive care unit at Sheba Medical Center after his condition "improved."

"[There has been] noticeable improvement in his kidney function and the pneumonia in his lungs," said David Weinberg, a spokesman for the medical center.

Sharon's condition is still being called "serious" and he is still being held in the care department for respiratory functions.

Sharon suffered a major stroke in January and has been in a coma since then. On August 14, Sharon was admitted to ICU when he developed pneumonia.


text:
Talk:South Africa end All Blacks' 15-game winning streak

SA
If we are going to call the New Zealand team the All Blacks then shouldn't we refer to South Africa as the Springbox? --Nzgabriel | NZ Portal | Talk 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A discussion over on wikipedia determined that the meaning of All Blacks is universal, whereas not everybody would know know about the Wallabies, Pumas and so on. Perhaps Springboks is pretty well known, but I think All Blacks would be the only name that the majority of people would know about, including those who know little of rugby. Cvene64 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


text:
European Union gives Iran two more weeks to comply with UN resolution

September 2, 2006

The European Union has agreed to give Iran two more weeks to comply with the United Nations resolution to stop its nuclear program.

"We in the EU and Germany have no interest in an escalation in the coming weeks due to deliberations in the Security Council. That's why we will neglect no opportunity to keep trying to find out through talks whether there is a possibility to return to the negotiating table," said Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister.

The U.N. gave Iran until August 31 to halt is nuclear program which Iran states is for peaceful purposes.

"Hyperbole against Iran's peaceful nuclear activities by Western countries especially the US will continue. Today those countries, which have filled up their arsenals with nuclear weapons, threaten nations and make claims about human rights and democracy. They are the biggest liars of the world. Avaricious powers can't create any obstacles on the way to the progress of our nation," said Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Germany, China, Russia, the United States, Great Britain and France are scheduled to meet on September 7, 2006 in Berlin, Germany to discuss the next step regarding Iran's nuclear program.


text: File:Plameflowchart.PNG

title: File:Plameflowchart.PNG


text:
User:Old TI-89~enwikinews

Hello! I can also be found here.

title: User:Old TI-89~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Old TI-89~enwikinews

Please leave a message

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Bawolff ☺☻ 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!
 * Thank you very much :) Old TI-89 01:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * no problem. Welcome to wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the username of a vandal
This username has been indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia and at Wikiquote. ~ Kalki 07:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up, but so far this user has done nothing wrong here. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 07:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Old TI-89. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Old TI-89~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Old TI-89~enwikinews


text:
Al-Qaeda releases new videotape

September 3, 2006

A 41 minute long video, released by al-Qaeda, has appeared on the internet featuring an al-Qaeda operative wanted by the FBI.

The man speaking on the tape is known as Azzam or Adam Yahiye Gadahn, 28, a native of the United States and from California. He calls himself "Azzam the American."

Al-Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri introduced him on the video. Zawahiri gives "an Invitation to [join] Islam" before making the introduction.

"To Americans and the rest of Christendom, we say either repent misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next. We invite all Americans and unbelievers to Islam. Muslims don't need democracy to rid themselves of their homegrown despots and tyrants," said Gadahn.

"Ignorance of Islam causes the people of the West to rapturously applaud when Israel perpetrates wholesale slaughter of Muslims in Lebanon and Palestine and leads them to give their consent to the atrocities that governments commit in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world," added Gadahn.

The CIA has confirmed that one of the voices on the tape is Zawahiri, but has not confirmed if the other voice is Gadahn.

Zawahiri and Gadahn were not speaking together.

Watch Video

Al Qaeda roept Amerikanen op om zich aan te sluiten bij de Islam

title: Al-Qaeda releases new videotape


title: File:03September2006.pdf


title: File:03September2006.sxw


text:
Talk:Al-Qaeda releases new videotape

Sweet, where can we download it? I bet it'll hit p2p in 3...2...1...
 * I second that, seriously, if someone has a p2p download link I'd like to include it. TRWBW 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1) There is no such thing as a P2P link: peer-to-peer software is, by definition, without any links or torrent files.

 * Actually, there is such a thing. Ever heard of Magnet? 62.181.57.12 06:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

2) Why would you want the video? Merodoc 04:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 04:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would you want the video? Because it's a PRIMARY SOURCE. It's the whole point of this article. Why wouldn't you want it? 82.181.132.194 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Found Video
You can go here to download the video. Jason Safoutin 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here too. Jason Safoutin 18:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Al-Qaeda releases new videotape


text:
User talk:Cvene64~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Bawolff ☺☻ 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Cvene64. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Cvene64~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cvene64~enwikinews


text:
14 Indian, Pakistani pilgrims killed in Iraq

September 3, 2006

Fourteen pilgrims, three of them Indian nationals, who were travelling to Shi'ite holy sites in Iraq were abducted and slain in Anbar province - the heartland of the Sunni insurgency.

An official at the Al-Hussein hospital in Kerbala stated that the men were bound and then shot in the head. Some of the bodies that were brought to the hospital showed signs of having been tortured, and one had been partially beheaded.

An attack on a Shia shrine this February has led to increasing sectarian violence in Iraq, prompting the Pentagon to release a 63-page assessment report that warned of a possible "civil war" between the Shias and the Sunni minority. The U.S report, however, indicated the fact that the current violence could be quelled to prevent it from escalating into a full-scale war. Washington has been trying to strengthen Iraqi security forces to curb the conflict and enforce the authority of Prime Minister Nuri-al-Malliki, but has, so far, been unsuccessful. A ceremony to hand over operational command of Iraqi armed forces from U.S-troops to local authorities was postponed due to poor planning of the itenary.

India's Deputy Foreign Minister E.Ahmed expressed regret over the fact that the victims had ignored an Indian advisory against travelling to Iraq. Pakistan condemned the killings and once again warned its citizens against visiting Iraq.


text:
Template:Al-Qaeda

 * Wikipedia article about Al-Qaeda

Below is my template for any Al-Qaeda stories. --Nzgabriel | NZ Portal | Talk 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

ca:Plantilla:Al Qaeda es:Plantilla:Al Qaeda fa:الگو:القاعده sr:Шаблон:Ал Каида

title: Template:Al-Qaeda