Talk:Scott Ritter

2001 arrest

Actually, if one reads the articles, the fact that Ritter's case went to court--and was dismissed by a judge--reveals that, obviously, the police DID CHARGE him. I changed the sentence to reflect this. Only people who are actually CHARGED with committing a crime actually have to stand before a judge (whether or not a trial is ultimately held).68.164.1.249 (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to put this information back in. Regardless of your political views what happened in the sting arrest is fact. This is not a Scott Ritter fan page people.

Ok, what factually happened? The records are sealed. I do agree that some mention of the incident should be made, because it did make the news. However, it is really tangential to his source of notability, so a brief summary of the verifiable facts should suffice ... these are quite few. Also, please see WP:AGF; it's not a valid assumption that editors who disagree with you are necessarily "fans" of Ritter, or motivated by politics. Such assumptions are not helpful in achieving consensus. Derex 01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I put the section back in, kept it brief, and tried to stick to the facts. Hopefully we can reach some consensus on this. Rustavo 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What can be published on Wikipedia is only the facts as published in the newspapers. The fact the court sealed the records is beside the point. The whole story was well-sourced from newspaper accounts. RonCram 06:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Rustavo. Derex 02:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how to put in "citation needed" ??? The Smear section is full of broken links that go to a generic UPI page. These reference should say "citation needed" but instead show a footnote.Vincent.fx 11:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Talk" person -- should the smear campaign be a separate section then? What is the policy on non-existent links being used as citations? What is the policy of using dubious sources such as WND?Vincent.fx 07:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Talk" person, if by that you mean a moderator. Nobody here but us chickens. A citation request is performed by inserting the word "fact" between double curly brackets at the appropriate point in maintext. See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Inline. In the case of the UPI cite(s) it is more appropriate to use "dead link" - see Wikipedia:Dead_external_links#Repairing and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22. The link to WTEN within the WND cite is also dead, but as with the UPI cite its content was discussed on this page before it went dead and there is no serious controversy as to what it contained. Andyvphil (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I misread the data and thought "Talk" was somebody's handle. So Andyvphil, WM, whoever has undone my edits: 1. Scott Ritter didn't have "legal problems", he has smear problems. His legal problems didn't inconvenience him much more than a traffic ticket. It was the leaks from a sealed case designed to discredit him -- exactly as Wolfowitz called it --that he had problems with. 2. The Wolfowitz thing: Wolfowitz said there was a smear campaign against Ritter by US gov't forces due to his failing to go along with the program. This smear campaign continued despite the change in administration. By any standard, the smear campaign is of more note than the "legal problems" of a case that was dismissed, and the "Smear Campaign" deserves its own section. 3. WND as a source? Please tell me how this extremist paper gets to be a reputable source. Last time I checked their site they had an article on keeping Jesus in Thanksgiving. 4. Broken links: You said "The link to WTEN within the WND cite is also dead, but as with the UPI cite its content was discussed on this page before it went dead and there is no serious controversy as to what it contained." First of all this is extremely dubious territory. Things are supposed to be referenced and cited, or else we could all say "we" discussed the content before and so it must be true. Second, there IS controversy about the supposed 2nd arrest, etc. If there is not a single original news source out there on something, the supposition, no matter what it is, stinks to high heaven. I look forward to your answer.Vincent.fx (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Ritter's troubles are considerably more than a traffic ticket. He seems to be pretty radioactive now, in fact.

2. I have no objection to your documenting allegations and rebuttals of a smear campaign against Ritter. But Wolfowitz said nothing in 1998 about Ritter's troubles in 2002, so the issues are separate until you can find a RS making the connection.

3. I don't see any reason to think Jerry Falwell's site is less reliable than, say, David Brock's, and Media Matters for America is quoted all over this part of Wikipedia. So, what's remarkable about his writing in favor of keeping Jesus in Thankgiving? He's allowed to have opinions that are not yours.

4. What to do about webrot is a problem. Various proposals are made at the links I gave you. Have you tried them? In any case, the "Legal Problems" paragraph was the subject of considerable conflict on this page, and though I was not editing this article then I am reasonably confident that if WND's link to WTEN didn't show what WND said it showed, it would have come up. So I consider the fact to have been verified. If you want a different policy than exists go to that page and edit it in. If it survives, I'll reconsider. Andyvphil (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Ritter's troubles are considerably more than a traffic ticket. He seems to be pretty radioactive now, in fact.

>>>> what evidence do you have of any legal trouble he has at all now? Wouldn't you like to share that with the Wikipedia? Because as far as I know all his legal trouble is wrapped in this one incident. Your charge of that he is "radioactive" is the vague language of smear.

Well, sometimes one incident is enough! If you read that incident you'll notice that Ritter doesn't say he was innocent. He admits to not wanting to shirk his responsibility and is willing to take the blame--yet he is also willing to say its all over now because a judge says so. The Judge may have dismissed the case, but he DID still do what he did and anybody who propositions underage girls to come watch them masturbate should be publicly known for the person they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.1.249 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

2. I have no objection to your documenting allegations and rebuttals of a smear campaign against Ritter. But Wolfowitz said nothing in 1998 about Ritter's troubles in 2002, so the issues are separate until you can find a RS making the connection.

>>>>Wait a minute, if Wolfowitz said there was a smear campaign against him, that's important info that should be in his bio, somewhere. Could you suggest a place?

3. I don't see any reason to think Jerry Falwell's site is less reliable than, say, David Brock's, and Media Matters for America is quoted all over this part of Wikipedia. So, what's remarkable about his writing in favor of keeping Jesus in Thankgiving? He's allowed to have opinions that are not yours.

>>>> By your methods the Flat Earth Society could edit their entry, take out "discredited" for their theory and put in "proven", and source it to any website they want. Good job, no wonder Wikipedia has little respect.

>>>>About linking that to the later smear campaign, now that I know Wikipedia takes just about any source as a "RS", that won't be hard.

4. What to do about webrot is a problem. Various proposals are made at the links I gave you. Have you tried them? In any case, the "Legal Problems" paragraph was the subject of considerable conflict on this page, and though I was not editing this article then I am reasonably confident that if WND's link to WTEN didn't show what WND said it showed, it would have come up. So I consider the fact to have been verified.

>>>>>Sorry, again, links to real stories don't just disappear. They might break, and then the info can be found elsewhere. In this case, in the bio of a living person, it's highly irresponsible. Source the charge or get rid of it. Vincent.fx (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you add a section on the alleged smear campaign against Ritter, with both allegations and rebuttals. If you can do so in a creditable fashion I will revisit your concerns about the "legal problems" paragraph. Dragging 1998 Wolfowitz into 2002 legal problems was not a good start, but the respect you earn is up to you. Andyvphil (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you still don't get it. The anonymous leaks about the 2002 legal problems was a continuation the smear campaign, which I will show with citations. So since the two sections that you propose will greatly overlap, I suggest you think about how to revisit the issue. Though it must be asked how someone who called Ritter "radioactive" will be a fair judge. Are you the boss, by the way? Vincent.fx (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. Ritter's radioactivity isn't a question of whether he is currently in legal trouble, but of whether his endorsements and views are sought. If he is radioactive because he was sucessfully smeared, so be it. And you will show whatever you manage to show. We'll see. Andyvphil (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Line removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

This is of course controversial material, and very poorly sourced -- one link to an infamously biased and dubious source with a broken link, not found anywhere else on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.151.249 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC) by me Vincent.fx (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with the Wikipedia policy mentioned above, a summary of Ritter's response to the allegations was added.Vincent.fx (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New comment

READ HERE: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango Davis (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC) This is the information, factual and covered in the press by CNN and Ritter's hometown newspaper, The Times Union. I think it's pretty disgusting that one lone Wikipedia editor who clearly is in Ritter's camp to the point that he or she is willing to subvert the 1st amendment in order to protect Ritter's crimes:

On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, in an interview with CNN, Scott Ritter confirmed he was arrested in 2001 and charged with a misdemeanor after allegedly communicating with an undercover officer posing as a 16-year-old girl. According to a source close to the investigation and interviewed by CNN, Ritter reportedly communicated with who he thought was a teenage girl in an Internet chat room and arranged to meet her at a Burger King in Colonie, NY, a suburb of Albany, so she could witness him masturbating. Ritter was charged with "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child," a Class B misdemeanor. It was also reported that Ritter was also involved in an earlier incident in April 2001 after communicating with an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/22/ritter.arrest/ "Ex-arms inspector, war foe Ritter confirms 2001 arrest"

While Ritter was claimed that the Albany County District Attorney's Office was engaged in the illegal act of releasing sealed documents, to date, however, Ritter has never presented any evidence to substantiate those charges. Furthermore, Ritter's case was improperly disposed of in Ritter's favor by veteran Albany County Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser without the knowledge of Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne, who fired Preiser upon learning of her actions. http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Ritter_TimesUnionArticles.html "Three Times Union articles about Ritter's Arrest”

Of course, none of this will make any difference because despite Wikipedia claims that it allows the "Wiki Community" to contribute to the editorial process Wikipedia's mission and the 1st amendment can be subverted by a single editor whose interpetation of Wikipedia's editorial policy, such as it is, WRONG and who clearly is a biased partisan of Ritter. Is THAT what Wikipedia stands for? I say Wiki has been hijacked by the likes of the editor in charge of RItter's record and should be replaced by someone more familar with both Wikpedia's editorial policy AND the 1st Amendment. -- Jango Davis - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango Davis (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is posed as a personal attack against me, and hopelessly off-track, so I will not respond. I have warned the editor to stop, lest he be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. If they wish to review the editing policies here and discuss this in a WP:CIVIL manner, that is what the talk page here is for.- Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah Scott Ritter, yet another arrest for the same thing! You can always rely on a dog to go back and eat his own vomit. If perhaps so many wikipedia editors the past 5four-five years didn't go out of their way to delete or water down references to his previous arrests, maybe he wouldn't have felt so enabled to continue these activities. I stand vindicated! - Jango Davis 14 Jan. 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango Davis (talk • contribs) 16:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Most recent edits

I would not have thought my recent edit of the arrest section[1] was controversial but it was quickly reverted by another editor who has been active in this article. The person reverting left an edit summary with which I agree, but doesn't seem to bear on my edits: "Examine the source. Ritter was responding to a single arrest - not "arrests" which remain unconfirmed."

I'll therefore go over each change I made.

• Changed heading from "legal problems" to "reports of arrest record." I made the change because "legal problems" is vague and incorrectly implies that there is some kind of problem. There is no source cited that Ritter ever had, or has, any legal problems. Even if they did they were short in nature and connected to his arrest. That is not the issue here. The issue discussed in this section is that Ritter was arrested, and that the report of arrests came to light and became a news story. "Reports of arrest record" is much more specific on that point.

You don't consider being arrested AND charged with soliciting a minor to watch him masturbate a "legal problem"?68.164.6.243 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• removed "near Albany, NY" - the location of his arrest is a spurious detail and not put in any context. Not a big deal but we try to avoid crime reporting here, we just give the salient facts.
• changed "subsequent news reports state that Ritter had brushes with police on two occasions" to "and according to one source". This is much closer to what the sources say. We have one citation to a source that quotes another source as reporting a second arrest. Also, "brushes with police" is too informal and colorful. We don't know what kind of "brush" we had with police. The point is he was arrested.
• changed "Though he was never charged with any crime" to "but never charged". The first version was logically inaccurate. A brush with police is not necessary a contradiction of not being charged with a crime. Also, we do not know that Ritter was never charged with any crime. He might have been caught speeding at some point in his life. The point is that he was not charged in connection with the one or two arrests. Arrested but never charged is short, to the point, and just gets the facts out.
• changed "involving allegations of intent to meet underage girls after chatting on the Internet." to "in police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings." The old version was loosely worded. There were no allegations and no statement of intent leading to his arrest. That's colorful language that's not strictly true. There were not even any underage girls involved. All we know (per the sources) is that there was a police sting in which officers posed as underage girls, he bit the bait, and he was arrested in connection with the sting.
• changed "Ritter charged that the reports, which resulted from anonymous leaks from a sealed court case, were a politically motivated smear campaign with the intent to defame him..." to "Ritter claimed the anonymous leaks of sealed court records of these arrests, which gave rise to these news stories, were a politically motivated effort to distract attention". Ritter's claim was not that the reports of his arrest were politically motivated, but rather that the leak of his arrest record was politically motivated. He did not accuse CNN, the New York Times, etc., all the major media, of being out to do a hit piece on him. Rather, he questioned the timing and the fact of the leak. Morever, he did not (per the sources) accuse it of being a "smear campaign." That language comes from a single source that opines without proving that it was a smear campaign. What the sources report is that Ritter questioned the timing and said it was unusual, seemed improper, etc. We should not put words in his mouth that he did not say. And in any event, saying it is a politically motivated leak to distract attention is enough; we can let the reader draw their own conculsion.

So I think I agree with the reverter. I'm just trying to get to the core relevant facts in the most straightforward, non-sensationalistic way possible. I hope that clears it up. Wikidemo (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the reworking of the page, because if was arrested it should say arrest record, not "reports of arrest record", because it does not make sense, there can't be news reports of a arrest without therea being a arrest.

he plead guilty, it should not make out that he wasn't convicted of a crime, if the record was sealed he, only if he was convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.130.230 (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's exactly the situation. There is one source that claims a second arrest, and we have a second source reporting only that there was a first source. There is no clear verification that there was a second arrest. This being a WP:BLP, and the matter being an alleged (attempted) sex crime, that is not enough to say there was a second arrest. In the case of the other arrest, the sources do not support that he plead guilty. Even if he did as part of the arrangement, the fact that it is a sealed record means it is a legal non-event, so simply saying he plead guilty is misleading. Wikidemo (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guideline: Did he do it or not? If he did not, he was smeared. If he did, he was not. 76.2.155.181 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not know what he did because the crime was not prosecuted, the court records are sealed, and there are no reliable sources that say he did anything. We have reliable sources only that he was arrested and that there were claims and reports of some underlying conduct. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Redux

I'm not sure how the material came to be removed entirely but it was, and the recent attempts to add it back in fall short in several ways. I'm not against mentioning the arrest record - in fact, a year and a half ago I drafted what I thought was a good treatment of this issue. I just want us to be true to the sourcing and honor the letter and spirit of BLP here. So I'm editing the latest version to preserve as much relevant info as possible but also scale back on some questionable parts.

• We don't need to detail exactly when Ritter gave an interview, or who reported what. We have reliable sources that he was arrested, so we can just say that he was arrested.
• We do not have reliable sources as to what he said, what the sting was all about, etc. What we have here are reliable sources repeating the claims made in connection with the arrest. Statements by investigators, arresting officers, in criminal charges, etc., are definitely not reliable. They are adversarial efforts by the criminal justice system. Thus, the claims themselves are not reliable, and repeating them with the proviso that they were only allegations does not satisfy BLP. In general, we rarely report details made in arrest statements or criminal cases unless there is a conviction or some other resolution. Here it is entirely the opposite. The court did not proceed with the case and it sealed the records. That generally indicates that it was a very weak case, or there was something else wrong in the case. It could mean other things too, we just don't know.
• In any event, the detail about how old the undercover officers claimed they were, which fast food chain and in which city they were planning to meat, what sex acts they think he intended to perform, and so on, are all lurid details. Scandalous unproven claims that would tend to hurt Ritter's reputation, and thus violate BLP. Removing them makes the article more encyclopedic and takes out this that cannot be reliably sourced. I don't think this necessarily makes Ritter look better or worse. If you simply hear that he was arrested in a police sting for trying to meet a police informant who claimed she was an underaged girl, your imagination could fill in the rest, and what your imagination fills in is probably someone younger than 14/16, and an act more serious than masturbating in public.
• Saying that Ritter never presented evidence that the release of sealed court documents was politically motivated is argumentative. This is an encyclopedia of things that happened, not a list of things that did not happen by way of trying to argue that someone's claims are unsubstantiated. If we had better substantiation than Ritter's claims on the subject we would put it in. The absence means that's it.
• Contrary to the proposed text, we have no reliable source that the case was improperly dismissed. We know that the DA fired the assistant DA over this when it came out, but we have no reliable source as to why, only claims by the DA. The competence of the DA's office is not directly relevant to Ritter's bio.

I hope that explains my edits. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job WD, with one caveat: the DA is a reliable source regarding events in the DA's office. Therefore the reason for the firing of the assistant DA belongs in the article. I'll be sensitive to WP:BLP in making the edit. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for lead

removed

WP:UNDUE for lead. A good indicator that something is undue for the lead is if the prose is the same as the 30 words the article body dedicates to it in a 3000 word article

Added by: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Ritter&direction=next&oldid=1113112211

Onlyforwikiapps (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The article body doesn't dedicate 30 words to it, its a lot more than that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up external links

The external links section looks like it's become a holding tank for additional sources. Per WP:EL we should really work those into the article if they source anything there, and otherwise leave them out (external links are for material that is NOT suitable for inclusion). Or as a light approach, we could just create a new heading called "Additional sources" or something like that. The idea is to organize the news and reference links from the normal type of external links (e.g. an official page, his writings, etc). Any thoughts? Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to clear out and clean up this section. Sometimes less is more. Dynablaster (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Employment?

Article gives nothing on his employment since 1998. Is there any information on this matter? Dogru144 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Works as a fireman and fireman instructor in NY. Wrote 5 books and made a documentary. Made public lectures and speeches. Also did consulting, not clear on what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiraniyaya son (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Arrest

I have no idea how to edit wiki, but I thought this might be a good resource for his 2010 arrest. The Pocono Record is the local newspaper of the area where the sting happenend. [2] Forgot to sign... 162.115.236.101 (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I just read about it on FNC's Web site: [3]. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. That's a game changer here, although there are some serious WP:BLP issues that I'll raise on the notice board WP:BLP/N. Assuming the story checks out it is likely to get much more widespread coverage, which will bring renewed attention to the original sealed arrest record (perhaps two?) that we've been downplaying to date. Let's see where this goes. Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see it's been picked up by the Daily Mail, NPR, Fox News, and Associated Press. We should avoid undue detail but I think it's pretty clear we should cover it and mention these sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to triple-post here but I've tried to clean up and improve the section, add some info, etc.[4] (including one intermediate edit) I'm not sure how much detail we want to add about the alleged sex act or the minutia of how this case winds through the court system. Sometimes it helps to imagine that it's five years from now. What would people really want to know about the incident? Probably not the dates of court hearings, but basically just what happened. We'll see. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. However, something like this is a life-changing event - it should merit a short mention in the lead, no? Ronnotel (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It probably will be, but we have to wait for the sources to say so. Also, I think that to be mentioned in the lede it has to be more than a life changing event, it has to be related to his notability. For example, Pee-wee Herman's sex-related incident was a big part of his public image so that gets a whole paragraph in the lede. A similar story with Roman Polanski (but maybe a bad example because that article has a lot of editing troubles right now) and Larry Craig. But not in the lede for Patrick Naughton or Pete Townshend. Some of this might just be random editing differences from article to article, but I think the dividing line seems to be whether the (alleged) crime is what they're known for. Time will tell, I think. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've to the standard slightly wrong. The lede, in any article, should summarize the major elements of that article. Being arrested three times for the same (heinous) crime is certainly a major aspect of this article. Pete Townsend is not an apt comparison - having his credit card get used at a pornography site that turns out to have illicit materials is hardly similar to actively soliciting sex with minors on multiple occasions. For Patrick Naughton, it probably should be mentioned in the lede as it has affected his professional life (he was fired after the charges were made known). Ronnotel (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this isn't a single incident, but appears to be a pattern of behavior, I too think it should be in the lead. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Until reliable sources indicate that this is the main thing he is notable for, we should not do that here. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether this is a "pattern of behavior" or otherwise diagnose his illness or whatever. Until the sources make a much bigger deal out of this, I don't see how it should be the lede. Now, if newspapers start referring to him as "child molester" more often than "former UN inspector" we can reevaluate. csloat (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's likely that will happen - most sources in the future will summarize him as the former UN inspector who xxx, where xxx is some summary of his run-ins with the law. It may be too early to know for sure, or what the xxx is going to be. My main objection with the sentence, "...arrested at least three times in connection with his attempts to solicit sex from underage girls..." was that it's ambiguous and doesn't really represent what the sources say happened. He wasn't soliciting sex from underage girls, he was accused of but not fully prosecuted for agreeing to sex meetings (it's not always clear who solicited whom) with police decoys who were conducting a sting operation. "At least" suggests that there is an indication that it happened more often, but I haven't seen any source to say that. Mentioning an arrest without mentioning the disposition leaves the door open to far I think. "Attempts" is also a little unclear - that could mean anything from hiding in the bushes to placing ads. I think we should be as specific as possible while still being brief so that people's imaginations don't run wild. What is sourced to have happened is already bad enough. What we know may be the tip of the iceberg, but if only the tip is sourced we can't really hint about what's below the waterline. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Can you suggest language that would be appropriate? Perhaps something like "Ritter is currently facing felony charges for blah blah blah" ? Ronnotel (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"I think it's likely that will happen - most sources in the future will...": Look, if that happens, we can address the issue then. But we cannot write the article based on what we think future sources will say. We need to stick to what actual sources have said rather than citing sources which don't exist yet. csloat (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We have reliable sources now that indicate Ritter has been indicted on felony charges for soliciting sex from juveniles. What more do we need? Ronnotel (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not putting it in the article; the issue is putting it in the lede. It is already in the article in a prominent manner. But so far the mainstream media have not made major hay out of this issue; until they do I suggest it's best if we don't. I really don't understand the rush to put in something based on articles that have yet to be written but that we think will be written in the future. csloat (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would arrests that don;t result in conviction be in any article, never mind in a lede? Just looking at smoking gun I see scores of arrests where charges were dropped of wikipedia biographied individuals that are not mentioned at all and none are in our lade on them.22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia allows for it. It is not important what other articles say (or don't say) as it relates to what should or is allowed to be in a BLP. If it is sourced, which in this case it clearly is, it is includable. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ritter be on the Wikipedia list of "People convicted of sex crimes"? If there isn't one, it should be created. Or, perhaps, "Famous pedophiles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scott Ritter/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The facts in this biography are incorrect. Here is an excerpt from a 1998 Scott Ritter interview with Elizabeth Farnsworth: ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons? Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability." WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program. In testimony before the US Senate Scott Ritter stated the following: DECEMBER 1998 : (RITTER SPEAKS IN SENATE HEARING) "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." - Scott Ritter, December 1998

Last edited at 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I found this on the internet, I have no link.

Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About WMD Lies Before Iraq War Now Say that Assad Did NOT Use Chemical Weapons

George Washington's picture by George Washington Apr 11, 2017 4:45 PM 972 SHARES TwitterFacebookReddit

Former U.N weapons inspector Scott Ritter warned before the start of the Iraq war that claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction were false.

Sunday, Ritter wrote that current claims that the leader of Syria launched a chemical weapons attack were false: Some sort of chemical event took place in Khan Sheikhoun; what is very much in question is who is responsible for the release of the chemicals that caused the deaths of so many civilians.

SEE ALSO:

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-approved-sending-libya-sarin-syrian-rebels.html

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/06/seymour-hersh-links-turkey-to-benghazi-syria-and-sarin/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

70.27.154.248 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

re: Commentary on Iraq's lack of WMDs

Ritter says there is "no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any" and that the evidence shows "Iraq is in compliance," but the article then says he contradicts "those claims, in November 2002...citing serious concern that Saddam would use chemical weapons in defense of Baghdad." What he says, however, is not a contradiction because he originally argues that the evidence says there are no WMDs and Iraq is in compliance, not that Iraq does not possess the capability to begin production of or acquire those weapons. The capability to produce or acquire WMDs is completely different than having or being in the process of manufacturing or acquiring WMDs. Moreover, Ritter was simply arguing that if attacked or if an attack is imminent, Iraq probably would seek to manufacture or acquire chemical/biological weapons as a means of self defense.

Pedophilia

Why isn't the fact he's served prison time for sex crimes against children featured in the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:890:73F0:A5A1:7A87:99:B829 (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Served in the Soviet Union and in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm

Is there a source for the claims in the first sentence that Ritter " served in the Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties" and "in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm"? These claims don't appear to be mentioned in the body. Burrobert (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"The New York Post is not an unreliable source"???

From Perennial Sources: "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department". Burrobert (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(⊙︿⊙)_/¯ Burrobert (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Ritter's publicly stated support for Vladimir Putin in his pursuit of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is too wordy and uses questionable sources

The number of direct quotes from Scott Ritter should be reduced. First off, using Scott Ritter's interviews, where he quotes himself, are "questionable sources." Not reliable. Secondly, this article uses too many direct quotes from Scott Ritter's books. Again, Scott Ritter being a 'source' on Scott Ritter is not reliable. The quotes from his book need to be shortened and/or removed completely. Third, the headings in the article should be improved upon. For example, the "Military Background" is mostly a discussion of where he was born, went to elementary school, etc. That section should be renamed. Oh well, bottom line, this article needs a lot of work. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree BetsyRMadison. Why don't you start doing that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Bob, Sorry for my the delay in responding. I will be happy to do that when I have more time, hopefully soon. Thanks! BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I've trimmed most of the blockquotes, but this article still relies excessively on primary sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Thank you for your trimming! I feel there are too many quotes from his books, what are your thoughts? In my view, much of this article reads as a book report. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead too short|date=January 2022

I agree with the Administrator that marked the lead as too short. Ritter's career started in 1980 and continues to this day. Though he is best known as the UN weapons inspector, that was only for 7 years in the 90s. I had tried to expand earlier but BetsyRMadison reverted almost all of my revisions. Perhaps we can discuss here? Ritter's occupation isn't reflected in the infobox hence I've added that. His occupation since '98 is comparable to that of Ann Coulter since '98. The 24 years he's filled with writing 9 books, 577 articles, lecturing in at universities and releasing a documentary seem appropriate to a Wikipedia biographical lead section. Reducing that to just opeds for RT comes across as misleading, hence I'm adding that. I'm confused by the note that "Muckrack is not a reliable source"? Is that stated anywhere? Wikipedia EN has over 250 citations of Muckrack. It's an invaluable resource for biographies of journalists and columnists just as IMBD is for the movie industry, hence I'm adding those citations. His career appears to be ongoing today, and he still writes and is written about. Hence, I'll include some of what he's published more recently and try to follow MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL. The circumstances and prison time associated with his conviction also seem relevant hence I'll include a concise sentence.Veej (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you changed the sentence regarding Ritter's 2011 conviction using the partisan and at-best situationally reliable Democracy Now!, especially given that the Democracy Now! source contains vastly less information than the previously cited sources (including The New York Times) and does not even support the language you added regarding Ritter's having "subsequently spent two years in prison" (nor could it, considering that it is dated 2011). I'm also concerned that you reinstated your WP:BOLD changes to the lede verbatim without seeking consensus or acknowledging the problems identified by BetsyRMadison and myself. Furthermore, your statement above is materially inaccurate insofar as Rauisuchian tagged the lede months ago when it was only three sentences long, is not an "administrator," and, to be brutally frank, is highly unlikely to support your POV on Ritter, based on his edits here and elsewhere. Regardless, I intend to restore the sourced content which you deleted without explanation and to remove the unsourced content that you reintroduced despite my prior edit summary pointing out that it failed verification, as your rationale is hardly responsive to these concerns.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging - You've managed to decide my POV on Ritter before I've done so myself? I'd suggest we avoid assuming the POV of people we don't know. Is there any evidence that Democracy Now! is not a reliable source? Wikipedia EN contains over 2000 citations of it. Do you see the relevance of a US police sting operation and prison time to the biography of an influential critic of US foreign policy? Multiple media sources regard that as relevant. I didn't include the NYT citation as I couldn't read it past the paywall. In error I omitted the prison time citation used further on in the page. I'll include it now. Veej (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I already referred you to the WP:RSP listing for Democracy Now!, which, yet again, states: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." "Do you see the relevance of a US police sting operation and prison time to the biography of an influential critic of US foreign policy?" I doubt that the precise details of the sting operation are particularly lede-worthy; if you are implying that a local Barrett Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania police office somehow knew that an anonymous individual he interacted with via a Yahoo! chat room in 2009 was "an influential critic of US foreign policy" that would seem to be a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence or reliable sources. (In fact, the more unusual aspect of Ritter's case, as The New York Times makes clear, is the sealing of the records related to his previous 2001 arrest: "For reasons that still aren't entirely clear, the prosecutor dismissed the charges, on the condition that Ritter enter intensive counseling, and a local judge sealed the records.") Obviously, we can refine the language used in the lede summary through civil discussion resulting in consensus, but trying to steamroll BetsyRMadison and myself by continually restoring your preferred version verbatim, while dropping gold-standard sources for subjective or poorly-defined reasons like "I couldn't read it past the paywall" and refusing to acknowledge the stated concerns of other editors—over and over again—is unlikely to achieve consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging - Apologies, hadn't seen that about Democracy Now!. I'm inviting you again not to assume the thoughts of people you don't know. Please see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Rather than espousing a conspiracy theory I merely stated the relevance of the sting, particularly for Ritter, and that media sources also indicate relevance. See headlines: [bbc] [reuters] [independent] [standard] [smh] [dailymail] [foxnews] [politico] etc etc. Obviously, 2 years in prison is also relevant. See MOS:NOTLEDE. I'll add the citations that are used further on in the page.Veej (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Banned from Twitter again

On April 10 (2 days after the lifting of his original ban), Ritter was banned again for apparently the same reason. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any decent sources that reported on his second ban. Just Twitter posts and fringe websites that wouldn't meet the reliable sources standard. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of "claim"

In reference to this, this and this by Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) and Kleinpecan (talk · contribs), perhaps the statement could be rephrased to read along these lines:

According to Matt Bai, writing for the New York Times Magazine, Ritter claims "the F.B.I. hounded Marina for years because it suspected she was former K.G.B."

How is that? Mercy11 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is that better than what we have now? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't present opinions as fact, which is what the statement does; we must qualify the statement with the additional information above to provide the fact as it is. The fact here is that Matt Bai wrote that; the fact is not that Mr. Ritter made that claim. Mercy11 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there any reason to doubt the reliability of what Matt Bai wrote? I do not see our current wording as presenting opinion as fact, I think you also misidentify what the "fact" is here and need to review WP:V. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, the burden of proof is on you, the editor who restored the material. You need to provide the answers, not ask the questions; sorry, that's not the way we work at Wikipedia.

Needed is proof that what Scott Ritter said about the FBI can be repeated at WP as a "claim" without qualifying that it is the author of the article who is terming it a "claim", and not other sources at large. If you fail to do that —and so far you have— then you need to reword the statement in a manner that doesn't call into question Scott Ritter's alleged statement about the FBI, something your reuse of claim is guilty of.

To help you out in what's needed, you can use this for comparison: We can use "claim" when a statement made has, subsequently, been proven false. For example, we could say "Before Copernicus, scientists claimed the Earth was the center of the universe." Your material cannot stay because you haven't provided a source proving that what Scott Ritter allegedly said about the FBI has been proven to be false.

In summary, you have various options: remove the statement entirely to avoid misleading readers by presenting an author's Opinion as Fact, replace the author's POV "claim" word with one acceptable in Wikipedia such as "said", qualify Your Preferred statement to indicate that "claim" is the opinion of the author, or show that the author's opinion is indeed correct by Providing a Source that disproves Scott Ritter's allegation about the FBI.

Arguing about my understanding of WP:V, questioning me when the burden of proof is on you, or presenting your personal opinions on how you "see the current wording" when you should be presenting factual evidence from external sources, doesn't help your cause. Please concentrate on the issue at hand and provide your resolution.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:V is satisfied, the burden of proof is met. We don't need a source "proving that what Scott Ritter allegedly said about the FBI has been proven to be false" because that is not the claim that is being made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

There is now an Open Discussion about this statement and it has been removed for its failure to comply with policy.

DO NOT restore the material removed while the discussion is open and until consensus is reached fully in your favor.

If you have any further comments, please make them at the Open Discussion site, here.

Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Potential sources

Worth reviewing:

• Gellman, Barton (12 October 1998). "Washingtonpost.com: Iraq Special Report". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 17 January 2023.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Briant, Dr. Emma L. (28 April 2022). "How Russia benefits from ill-informed social media policies". Brookings. Retrieved 17 January 2023.

[ Scott Ritter’s removal from Twitter in April 2022] was immediately accompanied by support from a reporter from The Grayzone, who claimed his voice had been censored in a widely shared tweet. Far from being “small pockets of dissenting voices,” the reach of networks of left- and right-wing accounts and outlets that adopt this position on Kremlin defenders is large. This one post still displaying the apparently ‘silenced’ Scott Ritter’s false tweet about Bucha gained 5,801 Retweets and 545 Quote Tweets. Max Blumenthal also shared it with his three hundred and five thousand followers, with currently 1,086 Retweets and 76 Quote Tweets... Ritter has finally been permanently suspended under their abuse policies, Twitter confirmed to me. All his audience will see is ‘account suspended’ and a link to a generic statement.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Russian nationality

How come he is of Russian nationality? Any sources? Wtf? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

External link? Just released: A Scott Ritter Investigation: Agent Zelensky - Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLeBb6hPUC8

36 minute video. My notes: Elected President days after playing the part in the tv series "Servant of the People", written by western intelligence agencies. Victoria Nuland was the lead author. Richard Moore MI6 became Zelensky's handler in 2020. Could Scott Ritter be part of the plan for the end of Zelensky? Doug youvan (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist???

There is a prominent warning at the top of this page not to add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material to Scott's bio. Currently, there is no source for the label "conspiracy theorist". Burrobert (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

There has been a mad rush to label Scott as a conspiracy theorist. Four attempts have been made in the last six weeks. Anyone care to explain the source of this unbridled enthusiasm? Burrobert (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, he... is a conspiracy theorist? Cloud200 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to include that in the article you need to attribute it. Something like: In August 2023, Cloud200 described Ritter as a conspiracy theorist. Some editors may consider the opinion undue though. Burrobert (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There's plenty of such sources, give me a few minutes. Cloud200 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Take your time. Use attribution for opinion and consider the guidance about Contentious labels. Burrobert (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Who is Stanley Heller and what source are you trying to use for his opinion? Burrobert (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

YouTube

There are reports that Mr. Ritter has been banned from YouTube. If true that should be mentioned in his biography. 2600:1014:A013:8172:955F:960A:D504:AA92 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

He's on YouTube today, 2023 Sept 5 Henrilebec (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Polygraph.info

The following passage caught my attention:

"In April 2022 and April 2023 Ritter said that Russia was winning the war. Polygraph.info wrote that Ritter's claims about Russia winning the war and about the Bucha massacre were false."

This is a really awkward passage. It feels like the bit about polygraph.info was just slapped onto the end of the sentence by someone who wanted to push back against Ritter because they dislike Ritter's prognosis on the war.

Why is "Polygraph.info" cited here as a source with expertise about the Russia-Ukraine war to debunk Ritter's statement? Who cares that polygraph.info wrote that Ritter is wrong about Russia winning the war? Now, in November of 2023, it's clearer than ever that Ritter was right, but that aside, why is polygraph.info reliable or due here? Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I plead guilty to writing that stilted nonsense. The text originally said something like polygraph.info had debunked every claim Ritter ever made so I rewrote it to only mention the two claims that polygraph contested. It isn't pretty but at least it conforms to the source. Whether we should be using polygraph.info for anything is a separate question. It is run by Voice of America. You can guess the rest. Burrobert (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello comrades. I too believe this is unreliable Just here for the facts (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert @Just here for the facts I don't know about you guys, but I don't trust Voice of America, or polygraph.info, to give an an honest and accurate assessment of the war in Ukraine. Even setting that aside, I don't really see how this is due. We can just say what the guy's opinion is on the war in Ukraine without citing VOA or anyone else to try to debunk it or provide "balance"...can't we? Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but we need to be careful. We already snuck in a quote from consortiumnews and we don't want the capitalists to notice Just here for the facts (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I know you're being funny but it might appear to some as if you are unironically WP:RGW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

VOA and Polygraph are both consensus RS, if you want to challenge that you will need to go to RSN. Until then you will need to abide by consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

But it is not reliable in this context, nor is it due. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not reliable in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:MANDY in reverse. Of course the US government will say that Ukraine is winning the war. If they admitted otherwise, they'd be admitting that their attempt to bankroll a Ukrainian victory is failing.

It would be like saying "geopolitical analyst X says that Israel's operation against Hamas will succeed, but this was debunked by Iranian state media".

It's like, yeah, duh, of course Iran, as a financially involved party, is going to publicly state that their side is winning. They would, wouldn't they?

So sure, the source is currently considered generally reliable (as reliable as any state media that Wikipedia describes as "propaganda" can be). But it is not reliable in this context because there is a clear conflict of interest. If a country is involved in a war, I don't think we should be citing that country's state media to "debunk" a geopolitical analyst's view of the war.

But I think, more importantly, this is just undue. Why not present the guy's opinion about the war in Ukraine, and present the US government's opinion (or Polygraph.info's opinion) at their respective articles? Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't have that restriction in the consensus, the community rejected that sort of restriction on the source's use. Thats not how due weight works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is context-dependent. And weight is a separate issue from reliability, as you know. I haven't seen any argument that US state media's opinion about the war in Ukraine in April 2023 is due in a biography of Scott Ritter. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes... And in this context the source is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Polygraph and VoA are definitely RS. VoA is regularly discussed at RSN and regularly the consensus is affirmed. I'm sure Polygraph was discussed there recently, and got weaker consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes2357 removed the quote despite the consensus in this discussion not being for his pro-Ritter & pro-Russian-propaganda position. [5] The discussion at [6] also shows that this is a reliable source. 129.7.0.160 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:I've restored the removed content since it was obviously removed against the discussion consensus here. USNavelObservatory (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Its an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It has been determined to be an RS, but it is also pro-US propaganda (per Wikipedia's own article on VoA), and it's hard to see why Polygraph's opinion about the war in Ukraine is due here, in a BLP, especially given WP:MANDY. @Slatersteven what's your response to that aspect? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Mandy?, its not talking about itself. And it is still an RS, so there is no reason to reject it on those grounds. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is talking about itself. The US government has funded the war in Ukraine more than any other actor. Scott Ritter alleged in April 2023 that the war is not going well for Ukraine, and by extension, the US. The US government, via its state media, denies this. Looks like a clear Mandy case to me, and I've seen Mandy invoked in a similar way when state media is cited to push back on criticisms of government policy. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"The US government, via its state media, denies this." do you have a source for that? Thats not generally how state sponsored media in the US works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this is clearly mandy. Anywhere a revolutionary struggle is happening, the US can be found. Quid pro quo, that makes VOA Ukrainian state media Just here for the facts (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Do I have a source for that? Yes, polygraph.info/VoA's statement about the status of the Ukrainian war effort is what I'm talking about.

I wouldn't go that far, @Just here for the facts. I get what you're saying, but let's not blur the lines. VoA is US state media, and the US officially and financially supports the Ukrainian war effort. US state media reflects US government interests. Therefore, it is obvious that US state media would push back against an analyst suggesting that Ukraine is losing. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This is based on a misunderstanding of how Polygraph and VoA work now; they are not state media in an editorial sense any more than the BBC is. Second, the context is Ukraine not US anyway, so even if the US was Polygraph’s “self”, MANDY wouldn’t apply. But anyway MANDY is an essay about DUEness not reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with BobFromBrockley Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::::I also agree with BobFromBrockley. VOA is not "state media", it's like the BBC. USNavelObservatory (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

First: nope, I understand how VOA works. The process might be slightly different than state-funded propaganda in other countries, but the result is essentially the same. They are state-owned media. They reflect the interests of the government that owns them, without exception. Even Wikipedia describes VoA as a "propaganda outlet" in Wikivoice. The article also states that it "serves US diplomacy".

I challenge you to find a single story in VoA or Polygraph's archives that adopts a challenging or adversarial journalistic posture towards the US government's position on any issue. Have they ever said that US policy was fundamentally wrong about any issue, other than a couple of snide remarks about Trump during his presidency? Remember, propaganda doesn't have to be false - the defining features of propaganda are careful framing & selective presentation of information to promote narratives that are in the interests of the propagandist. With that in mind, [Here's an interesting article.

I think our miscommunication here is either 1) we're using different working definitions of propaganda or 2) you disagree with the premise that state-sponsored propaganda is undesirable in an encyclopedic context. I've seen you argue against the inclusion of Syrian state propaganda elsewhere, because of the fact that it is propaganda, and I'm pretty sure you voted to deprecate Venezuelanalysis on the basis of it being "propaganda", so I have to admit that I'm a bit confused by your position. I'm sure "US & allied propaganda = good, US adversary propaganda = bad" is a straw man of your position, so what is your view of propaganda as it relates to Wikipedia? I'd genuinely like to know, as you're closer to a subject matter expert than almost any other editor in this space.

Second: I know "the context is Ukraine". The context is also the fact that the Ukraine war is a proxy war between the US/NATO and Russia, so the US is an intimately involved party. The war would have ended long ago without the US stepping up and funding Ukraine's war effort and Ukraine's civil society. The Ukrainian war effort is a US war effort. Any geopolitical analyst that can scrape two brain cells together would predict that US state media would rebuke those who say that the war effort is going poorly. The previous commenter's observation that VOA is essentially Ukrainian state media as it relates to the war is an exaggeration, but not by much. Hence, Mandy.

And my only point was that the US government's very predictable position on the Ukraine war isn't really relevant in a biography of Scott Ritter. I'd be totally on board for putting Polygraph's opinions on the Ukraine war in the VOA article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Didn't Slatersteven just warn you about WP:TIMESINK? The "interesting article" you linked is an opinion piece so it's not RS, and it still says "VOA still operates under its congressionally-approved 1976 Charter, requiring it to report accurately, objectively, and comprehensively, and reflect a range of opinions." Why even link something you know doesn't qualify as a reliable source? USNavelObservatory (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

And if you can get consensus for that position good for you... Looks like an uphill trek though, you don't have much agreement here and there's a lot of opposition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, even though this passage is silly, we can include it. I propose at least adding context to the polygraph.info citation, since polygraph doesn't have its own article, and its connection to VOA is not apparent. Since polygraph.info is mentioned in a paragraph that precedes the one we're discussing, I think the context should be added to the first polygraph.info citation. Hence, I propose the following change:

"Polygraph.info wrote that he compared Ukraine to “a rabid dog” that needed to be shot."

to

"Polygraph.info, a subsidiary of Voice of America, wrote that he compared Ukraine to "a rabid dog" that needed to be shot."

This adds additional context for the reader, while removing no content. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

EuroNews article

Ritter is "among the cohort of Americans courted by Russian propaganda sources." The Russian term is "tankie." [7] 129.7.0.160 Since multiple other sources in this page agree with this assessment it should be included either in the lead or in the start fo the paragraph on his views of Ukraine. (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is built largely on quotes from Natalia Antonova, who is (surprise, surprise) the former editor of Bellingcat. Here are some titles from her Foreign Policy articles: "Putin’s Stability Was Always a Myth", "War With Chechnya Brutalized Russian Society, and Ukraine Is Paying the Price", "Get Out of Russia", "Even Recorded Murders Won’t Turn Russia Against the War", "Western Companies Still in Russia Are Making a Big Mistake", "Putin Made Fools Out of His Admirers", "Scientists Want Out of Russia". What does she really think about Russia? The article thinks it is a bad idea that Ritter is suggesting we avoid actions that "could lead to a nuclear attack". Apparently, Ritter is "singing a song the Russians like to hear" because he wants to avoid "a nuclear-level escalation". That is a catchy tune. Burrobert (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes you're right, Antonova appears to be a highly qualified subject matter expert (Bellingcat is a high quality reliable source after all, as is Foreign Policy). Don't think it should be in the lead but we can definitely work it into the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I posted the question to [8] to ask for more people to take a look too. 129.7.0.160 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What's the question? Should we call him a tankie? If so: no, it's a contentious label. Should we use that article? Yes, it looks like it adds things not in the current article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If the term "tankie" is contentious maybe that should be sourced in the text. The article in general is something I think should have better coverage since it is a pattern consistent with the other sources in the [[9]] section, almost all focus on Ritter's comments in the context of his alliance with Russia's propaganda agencies. Euronews coverage mirrors [10] and [11], I think that the section is worded weasely and fails to properly reflect the reliable source news written on the nature of Ritter's ties to the Russian government as a propaganda agent. 129.7.0.160 (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course we should not call him a "tankie".

As for what should be included from the EuroNews article, there might be a few usable snippets, any specific suggestions? In general it reads like a guilt-by-association hit piece, which should be interpreted as an opinion piece representing the views of EuroNews, which I'm not sure is due. I'd really like to see a source "debunking" Scott Ritter that isn't currently or formerly tied to one of the governments funding the Ukraine war. That would hold a bit more weight. Do you have any of those? Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are some points from the article that would be appropriate to include:

• Ritter's summary of his book Disarmament in the time of the Perestroika. "[It] aims to warn the US public about not seeking out escalations with Russia which could lead to a nuclear attack and [argues that] the Western public has forgotten how difficult it was to achieve these agreements in the first place".
• Ritter's warning about the danger of the Ukraine conflict causing a "nuclear-level escalation" which the article says is also of concern to Russia.

The useful parts are far outweighed by the funny parts such as:

• Comments about Ritter: "typical disgraced American", "desperate", "kowtowing to Soviet leadership", "feel[ing] good about himself again", "turn[ing] to the proverbial dark side"
• Meaningless generalities about Russia such as "the cold yet very confining embrace of the Russian government", "I mean bad Russians", "Russians will overlook anything as long as you’re useful to them", "the inferiority complex many Russians feel"
• Describing Seymour Hersh as "one of the more distinguished among" the "apologists for the Putin regime". Burrobert (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::"Ritter is an example of a typical disgraced American – often a man – who discredited himself in the US and now wants to be perceived as a source of “honest analysis” in Russia as a means to achieve renewed or increased glory." This seems completely fair. I'm not certain the brevity of your quote snippets is accurately portraying the source. USNavelObservatory (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That's an extremely opinionated analysis that, if included at all, must be attributed in-text to the author. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Its not a hit piece nor does it appear to be an opinion piece. Note that it would hold the exact same weight regardless of the RS it was published in as long as its a RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's so overwhelmingly clear that this piece contains opinion that I don't even know where to begin. Burrobert's analysis is a good start, parsing out the factual information from what is obviously opinion. Perhaps there are other segments that we can use, too? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Containing opinion is not the same as being an opinion piece. Burrobert's analysis appears to be sarcastic. Do you have a source for the hit piece claim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert can clarify whether or not he was being sarcastic. I don't see any evidence of that, it appears to me that he was making a point about the article.

Set the term "hit piece" aside if that's a point of confusion. I think every literate person would agree that this article was written with the goal of portraying Ritter in a negative light, and presents information in a selective manner.

That doesn't mean it's totally unusable. It just means that many statements (like "typical disgraced American", "kowtowing to Soviet leadership", and describing Seymour Hersh as a Russian apologist) should be taken as opinions, not empirical facts, which means that if we decide to include them, they need to be attributed rather than written in encyclopedic voice.

That shouldn't have to be pointed out, but I'm doing so just to be safe. I don't want to come back here next week and read in the opening sentence that Scott Ritter is a "disgraced Russian propagandist and tankie". That is all. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that there are enough sources to support placing in the lead two things.

• That Ritter is a disgraced, former US Marine.
• That in his appearances on Russian TV outlets, writing for Russian propaganda outlets, and in-person promotional events he promotes talking points distributed by the Russian government.

::::::::"In other words, Ritter told his Russian audiences what the Kremlin wants them to hear," is a relevant quote from the Albany Times-Union source that Just here for the facts offered below. USNavelObservatory (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It may be within the purview of, say, the newsroom of CNN to use the word "disgraced", but it is not appropriate in an encyclopedic context. We could say that, according to so-and-so at EuroNews, Ritter is "disgraced", but there would still be the question of weight, especially in a BLP context. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

We already state that he's an ex-Marine and the reason he's regarded as disgraced: namely, the whole sex offender thing. To say "disgraced" is an NPOV violation. It's also mentioned that he writes for RT and Sputnik, and I would not necessarily object to adding that he provides favourable coverage of Russia's actions (similar to the lede of Max Blumenthal), but it'd need to be phrased a lot more neutrally. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what the "so-and-so provides coverage favorable to Russia" accomplishes encyclopedically, even if an RS says it. In terms of political analysis, it's little more than trivia, and it also implies some sort of nefarious connection to Russia, for which there's no evidence in most cases.

It's also redundant. Of course saying "Russia is going to win the war" is aligned with Russian narratives. Duh.

I also can't help but notice that statements like "so-and-so says things favorable to Russian interests" abound, while statements of "so-and-so says things favorable to US interests" do not exist. I would submit that this is a product of bias in our selection of sources, rather than a reflection of reality, and we should therefore be careful with vague "he peddles narratives aligned with country X" statements, unless there's actual evidence of some sort of connection that would compromise the person's independence (i.e. they're funded by the FSB) Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And I would submit that the community has rejected that concern. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::I agree. The weight of the reliable sources shows that Ritter's motivation is his funding, which is coming from speaking tours selling Russian audiences what the Russian government wants Ritter to say. [12][13][14][15][16] Rewriting the article to avoid clearly reflecting Ritter's conflict of interest is textbook whitewashing. USNavelObservatory (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Looks OK to me, and if more than one RS say "mean" things about him, its not undue either. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If a bunch of RSs say the same mean things then they’re DUE. I wouldn’t use labels like “tankie”, “vatnik” or “propagandist”, but it looks like a bunch of RSs say he promotes pro-Russian narratives BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Rabid dog quote

We have a source that calls Ritter a foreign policy expert, and discusses how Ritter's analysis that Ukraine is a rabid dog that should be shot by Russia. This is from the mouth of a highly honorable expert, and should be considered for inclusion [[17]] Just here for the facts (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• "That history has largely made Ritter an invisible man in the United States, despite his foreign policy expertise and his prolific writing on the subject since being released from a Pennsylvania prison in 2014. Not so in Russia, where Ritter found work on state outlets such as RT News and is presented as “a trusted expert,” one of the few Americans willing to tell the truth about his government."
• "In other words, Ritter told his Russian audiences what the Kremlin wants them to hear."
• "In video clips of his appearances last month, Ritter doesn’t speak about the sadistic way Putin is carrying out the war — the abduction of Ukrainian children for deportation to Russia, for example, or the routine bombing of Ukrainian hospitals. Nor was Ritter willing, when I asked, to talk much about Putin’s brutality and authoritarianism within Russia. On Russian television, he aimed his criticisms at the United States."

:I don't think you have presented a fair assessment of the article you have linked. USNavelObservatory (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about those lines Just here for the facts (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Which lines did you have in mind for potential inclusion? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"According to international policy expert Scott Ritter, Ukraine is a rabid dog, and Russia needs to shoot it" is my proposed addition Just here for the facts (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that will work. We shouldn't describe him as a "foreign policy expert", whether he is or not. Neutral, descriptive labels should be favored, always. As for his "rabid dog" assessment, I suppose it would be useful to include. I'm all for adding Ritter's opinions to the article to give the readers a clearer picture of his views. He's also invoked the "rabid dog" metaphor in relation to Israel/Palestine in a recent interview. If I can find that, we could include both statements. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• "“Scott Ritter just spent 26 days touring Russia, where — predictably enough — he was asked what he thought of its president.

Vladimir Putin will go down in history as one of the greatest leaders of all time,” Ritter said, waiting patiently for a translator to convey his words. “It’s only because of Vladimir Putin that Russia exists today. But Russia doesn’t just exist — Russia thrives.

Nobody who has been paying attention to Ritter since the invasion of Ukraine would be surprised by the answer. The former United Nations weapons inspector has emerged as a strident Putin defender who has compared Ukraine to a rabid dog that needs to be put down, and claims Russia’s invasion was an act of preemptive self-defense.”

:::That is the context of the "rabid dog" statement. It's not a "from the mouth of a highly honorable expert" claim that Ritter's "analysis" has anything to do with facts. The article is mostly about how Ritter makes his money today selling Russian audiences "what the Kremlin wants them to hear." USNavelObservatory (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We can say "according to...he is an expert", but to say it in our voice we need multiple RS calling him one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Organization

Is it just me, or is the layout of this article weird? For instance, the section "Weapons inspector" contains a summary of his career as a weapons inspector, but also a "reception" subsection. The sections "US policy toward Iraq" & "Iran" contain his political analysis, as does the section "Russian invasion of Ukraine", but they are separated by two sections that feel out of place, "In Shifting Sands", about his documentary, and "Arrests and conviction for sex offenses". The Russia section is unlike the Iraq and Iran sections, because it attempts to "balance" a presentation of his analysis with the reception of his analysis.

How might we go about rearranging this article in a way that makes sense? I think we could take the "reception" subsection from the "Weapons inspector" section, combine it with the reception he's received to his political analysis, and create an independent "reception" section. We could probably combine the "In Shifting Sands" section into the "US policy toward Iraq & Iran" section. And we should move the "Russia" section above the "sex pest" section, so that all of the political analysis is together. Other ideas? Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly but I kind of think the basic outline of the current shape is fine, as it runs chronologically. Moving the In Shifting Sands section makes sense, and that keeps it chronologically, but the others I don't think I would. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What "sex pest" section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

“Arrests and conviction for sex offenses”. Philomath2357 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops. I used the wrong username when I signed in to my new iPhone. Forgot I even had that other account. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't favor separating commentary into "Reception" sections for BLPs, because separating views from context can lead to a non-neutral WP:STRUCTURE. Llll5032 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't just you. I read the article for the first time, and concur that the flow IS confusing. It seems to repeat parts of Ritter's career in a way that is disjointed. Before addressing that, I want to be more clear about the chronology of all Ritter's different roles. He had many between graduating college and say, 2002! Clearly, he must have done some things simultaneously, but that is not discernable in the article. I'll write a separate section below describing what doesn't add up.--FeralOink (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

VOA/Polygraph undue

These American propaganda sources exist solely to make Scott look bad. They are WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia policy demands we remove them from this article. I would be OK with neutral sources, but none make these outrageous claims. Stalinist57 (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not according to every discussion here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

nvm

delete this

M28k (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Confusing chronology of career

This is the chronology that I traced through the article. I have bold fonted parts that are contradictory or missing and are gaps to be filled in if possible.

- Born in 1961, high school grad in 1979
- Private in US Army in 1980
- When did he graduate from Franklin & Marshall college?
- Commissioned as a military intel officer in Marine Corps in May 1984 and served until May 1996. Why 1996 not 1998?
- Marine Captain intel analyst during Desert Storm/Gulf War 1991; junior intel officer in Desert Storm/Gulf War in lead, no date. Same? 
- Worked as a weapons inspector for UNSCOM disarming WMDs in Iraq from 1991-1998 
- Worked with MI6 and UNSCOM from December 1997 to June 1998
- Was doing weapons inspections in Iraq in January 1998
- Resigned from UNSCOM on 26 August 1998
- Did an interview about it on PBS on 31 August 1998
- Testified to Senate Committees about why he resigned on 3 September 1998 
- Published Endgame book in 1999 
- Wrote and directed documentary film Sands in 2000 or 2001? Says both.
- Voted for Bush in 2000
- Arrested as sex pest twice in 2001 (once in June 2001) 
- Critic of Bush in 2002
- Went to Iraq to address Iraqi Parliament in 2002 
- Said US couldn't capture and hold Bagdad and would go home defeated in early 2003
- Was pro-Iraqi resistance in February 2005
- Predicted invasion of Iran by US and war as sure thing in February 2006
- Published Target Iran book saying that Israel would force the US to have a war with Iran in December 2006
- Said that Iran was hiding nukes in February 2007 
- Arrested as sex pest again in Nov 2009
- Went to prison from March 2012 - September 2014
- What did he do between September 2014 and February 2022?

Article isn't as full of missing time periods or contradictions as I first thought. This section can probably be hatted, and just the salient missing info listed. FeralOink (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

All of Scott's statements concerning Isrea-Hamas 2023 have been deleted, why is that?

I added a praphrase of his comments about the intelligence analyst's statements on Hamas and Israel, in quotes, and that caused the entire Hamas Israel section to be deleted, which is all that the person is currently focused on researching and talking about. It was controversial, the deletion seems politically biased. Why was it deleted entirely? Lifeinthetrees (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

SPS and quotation was stated for the deletion however it was not a quotation, it was a paraphrase to summarize a 30 minute list of statements.

If I add a section to the Russia statements, do you want to delete the entire Russia section too?

Here is who deleted it and why. Parham wiki (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That is an erroneous reason, and he also deleted the entire section, not just the addition, which is unjustified. It is an erroneous deletion because quotation limits are verbatim quotations for copyright reasons. These were a paraphrase of statements to summarize a 30-minute interview on his research of the Hamas Israel conflict. Lifeinthetrees (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vladimir.copic: Parham wiki (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The section was cited to Ritter's website and a Youtube video. In other words, these were WP:SPS which are fine to use when written by the subject of the article (WP:BLPSPS). My problem is that I do not see sources suggesting this is WP:DUE in this article. Ritter writes and has views on many topics - a few weeks ago he wrote in his blog about Tom Joad for example. We need third party WP:RS to demonstrate that his views on certain topics are notable and should be represented in the article.

I removed about 230 words of which around 180 were inside quotation marks. From that I interpreted them to be direct quotations - although I haven't watched the full Youtube video to verify this. If the text inside the quotation marks was a paraphrase and not a direct quotation then that is a serious WP:BLP violation as it is incorrectly attributing word to a living person who did not write them. If this was indeed a direct quotation, then MOS:QUOTE advises against extensive use of quotations and WP:NFCCEG says that Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, though not the reason I removed the text, I note Lifeinthetrees is an autoconfirmed user. Per WP:CT/A-I, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area so Lifeinthetrees edits could have been reverted on this basis alone. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Euronews citation

I'm not exactly sure how the sentence that says that, according to Euronews, he predicted Ukraine would lose the war, is connected to the sentence before it. Am I missing something? Did whoever wrote that mean to say that he predicted a loss in the war in the book? Kelvinnkat (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I plead guilty to writing that sentence. Originally, the sentence read:

In 2023 Ritter is touring Russian towns, giving interviews to local media and reassuring them that "Ukraine will lose the war".

This seemed rather pointy so I rewrote it to include the same information but in a less accusatory tone. All the information is in the Euronews source. I attributed one statement to Euronews as I was not sure of its reliability rating. Presumably the connection between the two sentences is that Ritter made the prediction during the book tour. Modify or remove any parts that you think are inappropriate. Burrobert (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)