Talk:Steve Pieczenik

Old sections talking about the speedy deletion nomination

Please discuss still active issues on the non-collapsed portion of this page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Speedy deletion nomination of Steve Pieczenik You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you. A tag has been placed on Steve Pieczenik, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam. If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 66.41.95.121 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Advertising This page is an advertisement and should immediately be overhauled or deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.248.23 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Agreed; this thing is codswallop.66.41.95.121 (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC) This definitely has to go. There's nothing objective about it at all. It seems created to justify and create credibility for his appearance on the Alex Jones show and the wild claims made about Osama bin Laden supposedly dying in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.36.65 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion How can an article on a man who has famously worked with so many presidents and US governments and written more than 20 novels suddenly get recommended for deletion when he comes out with a view that goes against the grain, specifically his view on the Bin Laden hoax last weekend. This is a call for a decently written article for a man more well known than many who have articles on this site. All he did was one interview questioning the official account and people want to rewrite history? This article has been shortened considerably in the last few days for no obvious reason. This is not what wikipedia is about I sincerely hope. 86.179.119.11 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... The guy seems notable enough, it's just that the article is extraordinarily poorly-written. It needs revision, perhaps all the way back to its earlier stub status, then revised from there, but not deletion.--Enigmocracy (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Given zero references, I see little reason not to conclude that this article was not deliberately puffed up in prelude to his recent appearance on the Alex Jones show -- with every subsequent mention on the 'net breathlessly linking this very Wiki entry in a huge circle-jerk.66.41.95.121 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I did some more research on the guy - you are right. There are no reliable sources to back up this guy whatsoever. Aside from extremely scarce mentions in mainstream news media, all you have is infowars stuff. I rescind my original opposition, and agree with you: this page should be deleted.Enigmocracy (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I agree a lot needs to be changed, but it does appear like his credentials are legitimate. see http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=33213457 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.8.177 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Even your suggested BusinessWeek link comes up empty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.36.65 (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC) OK here is the link again, EXECUTIVE PROFILE: Stephen Pieczenik He is legitmately a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, see Membership Roster I am not saying any of this as an Alex Jones fan or a conspiracy theorist. However, I think that his credentials are legitimate, and should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.8.177 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... --24.209.29.217 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC) People need the basic information about who this man is and what his credentials are. Agreed -- can you verify anything in this spam article?66.41.95.121 (talk) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... It is factual.--70.234.163.148 (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC) How do you know?66.41.95.121 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because...the flow of free information and free society hangs in the balance --69.122.158.32 (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC) the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution Wikipedia is not an effluent-nozzle for the Alex Jones program.66.41.95.121 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because the little information provided is true and helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.206.137 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Please provide documented proof that the information provided is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.36.65 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... --86.10.122.31 (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Innocent until proven guilty. Unless evidence materialises, to prove that said information is incorrect, then the information still stands. No, claims must be proven in order to stand. I don't get to say I'm from another planet and force you to prove otherwise. No, if I'm going to make extraordinary claims, I must provide evidence to back them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.36.65 (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion Contested deletion > Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it does nothing but promote some entity, person? That's what EVERY WIKI bio does. Right, but these liberal wiki-commissars do not care. They obviously do not care about Jesus Chr... I mean Barak Obama's gushing unsubstantiated wiki bio that glosses over his corrupt Chicago days. These guys are tools and proves that Wikipedia is NOT and never WILL be a credible source of information. I got to love the doublespeak and doublethink of all these super liberal wiki editors. Screw them and wiki. They can live in their fantasy land where they think they have freedom of thought and expression, but in reality they are tiny minded tyrants. Notice this happens after he comes onto Alex Jones' radio show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.231.55 (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Oh please. Spare me the straw men. I've had my own disagreements with a few editors on this site, and me being a movement conservative and all they have tended toward the political. However, I think Jones is - to put it nicely - out to lunch. As is anyone who would seek to legitimize his ramblings. As you don't get to turn this site into a platform for conspiracies, I'm surprised this page wasn't deleted long ago. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... --173.217.78.70 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC) in doing so it would constitute censorship which is fundamentally at odds with healthy intellectual discourse. Furthermore, by deleting this page it would only serve as an affront to the First Amendment of The United States Constitution due to the fact that definition of the violation used to justified the deletion of the page is rather broad and subjective. 03:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Kristi, do you have any interesting in editing Wikipedia outside of this article? It would appear not. You're also quite wrong in your "censorship" claim because that's not what's going on here. Can YOU edit this article so it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability?66.41.95.121 (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not run by the government, so first amendment protections do not apply. Kevin (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... --66.223.59.217 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC) He is relevant. But the claims about him are not and have not been substantiated. Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because more time sould be given in light of his recent interview with Alex Jones.Wiki will look bad if it is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.164.216 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC) You can take your appeal to guilt and stick it where the sun don't shine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.36.65 (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... --153.104.188.38 (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) So this guy goes on the Alex Jones show, talks about government conspiracies, and now his page is up for deletion? On what grounds is Wikipedia planning on deleting this article? Self-promotion? I seriously don't understand. Because this article was puffed up just before the interview in an attempt to make the mentioned seem more famous, more important, more credible. It's a cleverly disguised appeal to authority. That's why it either needs to be revised to fall within the guidelines or it needs to be deleted, and quickly. Contested deletion http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Steve+Pieczenik&x=0&y=0 For the simple fact he has been a co-author with Tom Clancy on about 25 books, some best sellers, is very note worthy.--Duchamps_comb MFA 03:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) The Amazon link you provide you provide makes it abundantly clear that Pieczenik is not a "co-author with Tom Clancy" of any of the interminable series of Op-Center or Net-Force novels. Instead, one gets the impression that Clancy simply consulted Pieczenik for details while planning the fiction novels, "created" the franchise (and gave Pieczenik 2nd-billing), and then farmed out the real writing task to Jeff Rovin. -- So, not only is the Pieczenik's Wiki entry misleading in that its sole actual purpose for existence is to spam 9/11 inside-job theories, but the defenders on Talk are all noobs who can't get their facts correct even as they're linking the material which proves them wrong.--Mike18xx (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... --71.237.187.173 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... --70.126.112.168 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Surely there has to be more proof for this man's existence... Contested deletion Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... --99.113.239.38 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC) He wants to tell the truth about 9/11 to the public and people need to know who he is and his impressive credentials to back it up. Contested deletion of Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik This page should not be speedy deleted because it is not in need of a complete rewrite, only a simple edit to remove self-promoting language. Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik's page needs to be immediately updated to encyclopedic status to factually preserve his integrity as a former government official, author and entrepreneur. Arippberger (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)arippberger Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... It is very informative and not a self advertisement. All these facts are verifiable. Whoever claims this has not read other Wiki articles has not read Barak Obama's wiki article --24.182.231.55 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because... --213.37.7.154 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC) The information is factual How many of you one-day-old Wikipedia accounts are not sock-puppets clones?--Mike18xx (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because it is about a former fairly high level government employee with notable contributions to society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.199.93 (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC) So edit the article to include your reputable sources. If you have any. Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted because he is a noteable person. I'd like wikipedia to contain correct and verifiable information about who he is. It shouldn't be hard to remove the self-promotional language, and verify (or disprove) whether he had the various government jobs in question. --86.128.211.174 (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC) This article should not be speedy deleted because... This page should not be speedy deleted because... --70.74.245.108 (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC) This is an attempt to silence a goverment critic/whistle blower and wipe clean his impressive resume and admirable service to his country. This will be step one in a attempt to slander and silence him. Deletion would be treasonous considering his recent revalations that the American people and the world need to know. This is not an attempt to silence anyone. This is an attempt to uphold long-standing wikipedia policies that require all articles to be about notable subjects and to be verifiable. If you edit this article to a condition where it clearly meets our verifiability standards by introducing reliable sources for the information contained in the article and you make it clear why this guy is notable, it's very unlikely the article will be deleted. You can sit here and whine about how everyone is oppressing you, or you can make the needed changes and save the article. Kevin (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC) This article should not be speedy deleted because... This page should not be speedy deleted because... --95.22.241.202 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC) the latest alleged grounds for deletion are false: Credulous bio-page for Alex Jones conspiracy-theory guest; all listed references are to conspiracy websites; all supporters on Talk page are new users who've joined for the sole purpose of defending the article.--Mike18xx (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC) ....Does this Mike18xx really consider UK broadsheet The Daily Telegraph to be a 'conspiracy website'? This man is co-auhtor with Tom Clancy of the OpCentre series of books....95.22.241.202 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC} He is not a "co-author". In fact, Clancy himself isn't an "author" of the op-center novels--they are a franchise ranched out to other writers (of which Pieczenik is not one). Are you truly incapable of reading the dust-jackets on Amazon, or are you just here regurgitating what you've been spoon-fed by the liars at infowars?--Mike18xx (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC) ...and was, according to the Telegraph "an international crisis manager and hostage negotiator in the State Department,", consequently anything he has to say is relevant and important. It would be interesting to know exactly what Mike18xx's agenda is.95.22.241.202 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC} It's very clear what your "agenda" is, Mr. 95.22.241.202 -- you're what is called a "Single Purpose Account" (SPA), i.e., a user whose sole purpose is to spam a single issue. And you are very single purpose, aren't you, given that the only edit your account, created today, has is to this Talk page calling me out for having an "agenda". -Do you have any idea of how monumentally hypocritical you appear to other people?--Mike18xx (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC) All these contested deletions Why, it's almost as though all these anons have been directed by a single source to contest it. *cough* 62.255.248.225 (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC) This article should not be speedy deleted because... This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Mocca2000 (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I've looked at G11: G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. --and this page does not fit into that description as is not exclusively promotional. It simply states that this guy appeared on the radio show and states what he claimed on that show. that is factually true. If the wiki article had said that he was fantastic on the show or that what he said is definitely true, then that would be promotion and should be deleted, but the fact that he appeared on the show and said this or that is factual and should be left on the page. as for the claim that the page was clearly created to promote his radio interview, that would not stand up in court. no one can see into the soul of a wiki page creator and see their motivation and ultimately that does not matter. a page must be judged on its contents. are there factual statements on the page that are backed up by sources? yes. are there any untrue statements? if there are, edit or delete them.

Cleanup

I have cleaned this article up so that only information that can be verified through reliable sources is included. Please do not readd information that I have removed unless you provide a reliable source that documents it. Please do not readd information about his apparent government career without a reliable source beyond his official biography. (Official biographies are only considered reliable sources for uncontentious information, and at least one user has suggested his career is not as he describes, so it needs a better source.) Kevin (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, one user? Well that changes everything. This is why wikipedia doesn't work, you get people who decide what's valid and what's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.100.53 (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"According to Pieczenik? " How about official records. Wikipedia is totally run by trolls. Facts do not equal truths, right?--Massintel (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a huge problem in the last 9 months, which is a major cleanup of social media and public news links in favor of the media bias. So how can we source something with physical evidence, for example can I upload the records of this guy getting a scholarship and other 'disputed' facts which cannot easily be found online? I called Cornell and they confirmed this evidence, but cannot send this information to 3rd parties. --Massintel (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted because...

There is no rational reason of ANY sort to delete the page on this guy. This is a former high ranking US govt official across mutiple administrations. The select editors who want to delete this page cannot overcome that fact. Arguing over how involved Pieczenik was in writing novels is a red herring since he still is noteworthy as a cabinet grade Federal Official. The ONLY REASON anyone is interested in deleting this page, or is making up excuses to try to justify deleting a reference to a high ranking Fed govt official is that he is making current charges in the mass media that are controversial and related to accusations against both the Bush and Obama administrations. The goal of deleting the page is simply a cover to remove the allegations that Pieczenik is making and prevent them from appearing here..

This is not even a legit issue for any sort of deletion. If you want to argue over specific CONTENT of the article you can, but as a former high ranking US federal official UNDER-SECRETARY (POLICY-MAKING LEVEL) its frankly insane to suggest for a split second he is not a noteworthy public official, and moreover he is wrongly being targeted for removal due to efforts to censor what he has said in the media, using chatter about Tom Clancy authorship as the only remote justification. If tom clancy novels co-authorship is in doubt, then you can delete that citation from the page, but you cannot in any way delete the entire page of a former Under-Secretary.. if you try, you better wipe out all the other former Cabinet level US govt officials too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.159.32 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, per well-established Wikipedia policy - which you can find at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Diplomats - for a diplomat to be considered notable (noteworthy) requires reliable third party documentation of the specific significant roles they have played in events of special importance. Also, he's not a former under-secretary. He's a former deputy assistant under-secretary. At the time the deletion was proposed, reliable third party documentation to establish his notability as a diplomat was 100% lacking from this article - there was nothing improper about the deletion nomination whatsoever, it followed well established protocol for poorly sourced articles without clear evidence of notability, and was identical in character to dozens of other deletion nominations that are made every day. The fact that the article still exists and was not speedily deleted is pretty solid evidence that the intention was not to censor over some batshit conspiracy bollocks. I agree that it has now been established that he is notable, but you need to look over WP:AGF. (You'd also be well served to look at the actual deletion page instead of just sticking your comment in the middle of this page.) Kevin (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Since the notability has been somehow established, we should be looking into the way to edit it in an appropriate manner so we can avoid unnecessary sentiment over the issue.I'd suggest we take off the deletion stab and protect this so that IP users can't edit it.--W.Bowers (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because... People are coming to this site to determine if Steve Pieczenik is real or not, and, if his involvement with security with government and military is real or not. Deleting the article is not logical. It just needs populated with information which can be verified. Calling for deletion just because he appears on Alex Jone's show is rather shallow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazkenny (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not calling for deletion just because he appeared on Alex Jones' show. We're calling for deletion because people have not been able to present adequate evidence that he meets wikipedia's long established article inclusion guidelines, namely WP:GNG and WP:Notability (people). If you have evidence that he does, by all means, include it in the article as long as it's reliably sourced. Multiple Wikipedians have looked for such evidence (or for confirmation of his supposed role in government) without much success so far. Kevin (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I found this page interesting. Independently verifying can be difficult with events that happened before the internet. Not everything is digitized and even where it was, you need someone to pay for the space on the net. You can scan old texts with character recognition, but then you need to go over all of it and correct it, plus format the text properly for wherever you want to upload. It takes time = money etc. and nobody's gone to the trouble of putting that time in. What you can use is facial recognition software and see if you find old images with his face.

I personally do not think that there's a lot of fake there. When you look at his achievements, there aren't really any, posts yes, achievements, no. 1974 he is involved with establishing a unit to prevent terrorism - and we have never had so much terrorism as since then. Aldo Moro did not survive etc. Who would put that all in, pointing to their failures?

From where I sit, we all know there were thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of secret service personel, now in 17 intelligence services outside the military. The chance that we read about one or two individuals or even meet one or two is very high. They usually get drawn in at university (like the other side did with the Cambridge Five) and then move around the world. There were so many, sometimes you see their children saying where they were born, how the government moved them about but they do not say that the father was in the diplomatic service or in whose service he was. In once instance in Western Australia a man died and the family found dozens of different passports of different nations with his photo behind the furniture. He used to leave, never said where he went or when he would be back. Sounded like he'd been one to do wet jobs. People who want to delete this page want silence over these topics. But the world will get worse if we let them - and besides they cost our money. 2001:8003:A0B9:EF00:592D:5A9F:4553:AB83 (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is his executive profile at Business Week that includes the biographical information. Additionally, the Council on Foreign Relations lists him as a member. I don't agree with his conspiracy theories, but I think it is pretty clear that he isn't just some guy who pretended to have a bunch of degrees and government experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.8.177 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No longer listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. See http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=P

Actually I think its pretty clear he IS some guy pretending... None of the information in his bio can be independently sourced!--66.188.135.32 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't honestly think the entire biography was faked either - but it was clear that parts of it were exaggerated and none of it was well sourced. Until I (or other people) could figure out parts of it were real and what parts were exaggerated, we couldn't rewrite it to be in a non-promotional tone, so our policies related to the biographies of living people, the correct thing to do was to remove anything unsourced until we could determine what was legitimate and verifiable. Kevin (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, businessweek profiles like that are generally submitted by the people they cover, so we can't use it as a source. It's roughly equivalent to a press release. Kevin (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

99.232.154.46 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Dr. Pieczenik stated twice that he is willing to testify to Congress that a General told him 9/11 was allowed to happen on purpose by the Bush Whitehouse; on the infowars.com podcast, May 3 & May 4, 2011; as well as on Steve Quayle's podcast, May 5, 2011. On this basis alone, this profile should not be deleted.

So every person who says they are willing to testify before congress deserves a wikipedia page? I don't think so. The only 3rd party verifiable piece of his resume is the CFR listing including his name. This article should be excised to that or deleted.--66.188.135.32 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that this is a gross misrepresentation, obviously by himself. A psychiatrist could diagnose him based on this content. It is unbelievable that this article remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirolam (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Telegraph ref

"Steve Pieczenik, an international crisis manager and hostage negotiator in the State Department."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581425/US-envoy-admits-role-in-Aldo-Moro-killing.html

Not using the telegraph ref, is like saying the telegraph writer did not research his sources, and printed a lie, or just talked to a bum in the street and made up fake credentials.--Duchamps_comb MFA 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The telegraph ref is a quote from Pieczenik himself. Per policy at WP:RS for a source to support a contentious claim, it must be intellectually independent. Kevin (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Written 9/24/2012: I came across this discussion and figured I would give my perspective on two of the above claims made by Kevin (Lenschulwitz (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)):

• Claim 1:"The telegraph ref is a quote from Pieczenik himself"
• Claim 2:" I think its pretty clear he IS some guy pretending... None of the information in his bio can be independently sourced!"

User Kevin claims the the Telegraph quote comes "from Pieczenik himself". However, if you read the Telegraph article for yourself, you'll discover that this is only partly true. Yes, the claims relating to Aldo Moro are - in the words of Kevin - "based solely on the word of a BLP subject". However, the sentence claiming that Pieczenik is "an international crisis manager and hostage negotiator in the State Department" is written as a claim by the journalist (Malcolm Moore), with no indication that the information originated from Pieczenik himself. That is to say the wording is:

Steve Pieczenik, an international crisis manager and hostage negotiator in the State Department, said that...

and not:

Steve Pieczenik, a man who claims to be an international crisis manager and hostage negotiator in the State Department, said that...

Seeing as though this is written as a claim made by the reporter (Moore) and not the BLP (Pieczenik), the claim is considered by Wikipedia policy to be verified by an "intellectually independent" and established source.Lenschulwitz (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So how on earth does Kevin here propose that one obtains a CV from _anyone_??? Or is he saying that journalists do not get to see the CV's, do not research them or that falsified CV's are so prevalent that it's a matter of routine to dismiss sources that have been printed in the established media just because the practices in BusinessWeek and elsewhere in mainstream media journalism is to ask a person hiself to list his credentials? This is becoming screamingly absurd Kevin. Give it up already. Nunamiut (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I like following established Wikipedia policies instead of just taking the advice of the first person who thinks to call me 'screamingly absurd'. Take a look at Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source - it is not okay to include in articles claims that are contentious, self-aggrandizing, or claims that deal with third parties, based solely on the word of a BLP subject. So yes - as you put it - it is absolutely a matter of routine to dismiss self-published sources that make extraordinary claims out of hand (like the BusinessWeek profile that was put together by the subject instead of BusinessWeek reporters, or, yes, like CV's.) If you have a problem with the fact that it is policy to not accept sources that are not intellectually independent of the subject when making major claims, the appropriate place to discuss it is on the relevant policy talk page, not here.

Note that the telegraph ref *is* in the article currently. Originally I read through the article a little bit too fast, and missed the part that was not simply quoting Pieczenik, since when it was initially brought to my attention in a different section the person was quoting only the direct quote from Pieczenik. At the time, multiple posts relating to Pieczenik were popping up by WP:SPAs in the time I could write any one response, so understandably, my initial wave of responses was not perfect. Also, I'm guessing you didn't take a look at the pathetic state the article was in before I pared it down greatly? Kevin (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole point is obvious: You seem to be working for the govt, just using the Wikipedia-Rules as a pretence to veil the really important information: This guy is a high ranking CFR member. His JOB was to fight terrorists on a very high level. Hes an insider, regarding both politics and intelligence. And this guy now claims 9/11 was an inside job. And now the cover-up here...why not a few month ago ? Why now ? TOO OBVIOUS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.18.220 (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you took a gander at my contribution history, you'd note that I've edited thousands of times, and only about two dozen were about articles related to 9/11 in any way shape or form. But no, I'm totally a government agent. That completely makes sense and fully explains why I put a lot of effort in to getting this article to meet at least partially our verifiability standard. Kevin (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"co-creator"

How can giving the man "co-creator" of "co-author" credit, requires sources? How can this be a contentious claim? All you have to do is go to amazon and look at the book credits, his name is rite there... Even the wiki pages Tom Clancy's Op-Center, and Tom Clancy's Net Force confirm this...--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I view it as a contentious claim due to the combination of his initial biography that made that claim being incredibly promotional and someone else previously disputing it. One of Mike18xx's comments about this can be found at the AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Pieczenik. He had a link discussing the authorship of the books somewhere else as well but I seem to have misplaced it. I have put in a statement that he is listed as co-creator of the franchise because that is both uncontroversial and easily verified but I have yet to find something that refutes Mike's explanation of authorship. Kevin (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

THE COMBINATION...OLOL...OMG THE HYPOCRISY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.18.220 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This court case has some interesting details about the partnership between clancy and pieczenik. The findings of the court in this (and related) case(s) can probably be incorporated in to the article, though I may not have time to do so currently. It also confirms that pieczenik was not actually an author. Kevin (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I presume that's the same judgement as this [1]. It's pretty much the only reliable source I've been able to find that establishes anything about Pieczenik: he managed, but didn't write a series of novels. He also seems to have been a psychiatrist, who last worked for the US government in the 1970s. Just having a MD & PhD of course doesn't make him notable, and it's his role supporting Alex Jones & talking nonsense about 'QFS blockchain encryption' that brought me here. Appears to be a self-promoting fantasist. --Cedders^tk 19:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If someone can access this article, it should establish his credentials

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --173.8.8.177 (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Post ran a profile on him in 1995 called He's Been There, Done That; Steve Pieczenik, Tom Clancy's Man on the Inside It is available on highbeam at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-822921.html and on the Washington Post Archive. You need the pay archive, but the limited summary says "But like Clancy's scholarly analyst Jack Ryan, the Chevy Chase psychiatrist and author has worked as an investment banker and been an adviser to several presidents. He is an expert on national security, international crisis management and hostage negotiation,"

Ideally someone has lexis nexis or can get full text.

I'll see what I can do, I should be able to get it. Kevin (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't get to it from where I am currently, but when I am on an academic network later today I should be able to retrieve it, and I will do so then unless someone else beats me to it. Kevin (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Accessed the Washington Post archive today. The "profile" appears to be a bit of a publicity article ("...and much-hyped NBC miniseries, the second part of which airs tonight.") There is a claim that he resigned as a deputy assistant secretary of state in 1979, but no proof. The article is written by Stephanie Mansfield. A quick search for her at the Washington post brings up numerous articles about books, movies, and celebrities. IMHO, not a valid reference. Offbeatcinema (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't get around to it yesterday as I wasn't in an appropriate place. Kevin (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So now, when the information becomes, too obvious, other criteria are used to censor the relevant information. VERY VERY FUNNY INDEED ! This way, you can basically neglect ANY information..."oh, the journalist is specialized in celebrities and movies, NOT VALID". Such a BULLSHIT, this STINKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.18.220 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --74.197.77.31 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) There is more Information on this Man... - DKNomeD http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581425/US-envoy-admits-role-in-Aldo-Moro-killing.html "Steve Pieczenik, an international crisis manager and hostage negotiator in the State Department, said that Moro had been "sacrificed" for the "stability" of Italy."

In Reference to Prime Minister Aldo Moro

Please see the section about this above. The telegraph ref is a quote from Pieczenik himself. Per policy at WP:RS for a source to support a contentious claim, it must be intellectually independent. Kevin (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT TEH TRUTH. THE JOURNALIST IS CALLED MALCOLM MOORE AND HE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHES HIS INDEPENDENTLY RESEARCHED INFORMATION FROM WHAT PIECZENIK SAYS. OH HOW I WISH THAT I COULD EDIT THIS ARTICLE TO END THIS FUCKING GOVT CENSORSHIP....

• Every piece of information that would be relevant to include from the telegraph article is prefaced by "Mr Pieczenick said" meaning that it is a quote from Pieczenik and not independently verified. I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your comments, since I suspect it wouldn't do any good. Kevin (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Clancy info that keeps getting reverted by Mike18xx as spam

I've restored the info, altering the language somewhat so that it uses the *exact* verbiage as is contained in the citation. It is not spam of any sort. It is sourced from a court opinion that Tom Clancy and Pieczenik both agreed was undisputed, and serves to shed valuable light on the nature of the business relationship between the two of them. It is directly relevant to Pieczenik's most clear claim to notability. Kevin (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The "spam" consists of attempting to fluff-up the reader's opinion of Pieczenik by doting upon the irrelevancy of how much money the book franchises made right after (finally) stipulating that he didn't actually write them. That information belongs in the Wiki entries of the books themselves, and serves no purpose here.--Mike18xx (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems relevant to me, which is why I extracted it from the court document to begin with. Monetary success of a business venture is frequently looked at as informative re: the magnitude of success that venture may have enjoyed, and commentary about the magnitude of success or failure of someone's prominent business ventures really seems appropriate for a bio to me.

The whole court citation was added by me btw, and not one of the SPA's that have been flooding everything - both the statement that he was in charge of hiring the ghostwriter (which is now that he "assembled a team") and the thing about the money. I'm not saying that to suggest I'm infallible or anything, just to clarify that it wasn't inserted by an SPA with an agenda. Kevin (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

---

This article should not be deleted because the guy is definitely authentic. It is really surprising that this article is being considered for deletion now, just after the Alex Jones show in which Mr. Steve made those allegations about Osama being dead since 2001. A google search, even a casual one, will show the guy is for real. Please remove the "considered for deletion" tag. -- 117.194.224.145

All deletion discussions run for seven days after they have started. At the end of those seven days, administrators will look at it and decide what consensus the discussion has reached. If the consensus is "keep" after that period of time, the AfD notice will be removed from the article but not until then. Kevin (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --86.179.119.11 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

How can an article on a man who has famously worked with so many presidents and US governments and written more than 20 novels suddenly get recommended for deletion when he comes out with a view that goes against the grain, specifically his view on the Bin Laden hoax last weekend. This is a call for a decently written article for a man more well known than many who have articles on this site. All he did was one interview questioning the official account and people want to rewrite history? This article has been shortened considerably in the last few days for no obvious reason. This is not what wikipedia is about I sincerely hope. 86.179.119.11 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This article has been substantially shortened because the original version had absolutely no references. Wikipedia policy on any subject requires that what we write be backed up by reliable sources. Kevin (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm shocked that they are trying to delete this Steve Pieczenik article. Sounds like deliberate suppression of information in trying to discredit this guy. Thousands of people are trying to find out more information on him, so that is reason enough not to delete it. Kevin are you paid by the CIA or NSA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.220.104 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither, although if anyone who is reading this feels like giving me money, let me know and I'd gladly accept it. As a non-joke reply - one of Wikipedia's most important principles is wp:verifiability. Information on Wikipedia must be attributable to a wp:reliable source. The information that has been removed from this page has been removed because no one was able to provide a source for it. If you can provide a source that verifies claims that have previously been deleted from this page, then the claims may be readded to this page. Accusing me of deliberate suppression of information makes no sense when anyone who is able to provide a reliable source containing important information about Pieczenik can add that information to this article. Kevin (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I was referring mostly to the fact that the whole article is considered for deletion. IMHO there should never be cause to remove an article on a person, especially an author and previously ranked government official unless that person specifically requests it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.249.36 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Lacking any independent confirmation that he was a ranked government official then this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.135.32 (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from KenricAshe, 7 May 2011

As detailed in the Articles for deletion page, Mike18xx requested non-primary source for Pieczenik's credentials as former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

It is acceptable (for now, pending additional references) to edit the text to reflect the information in the already referenced NY Times and the following Forbes articles. I hope there is no issue of opinion when it comes to verifiable non-primary sources, lest we resort to Descartes and philosophical debate over what is reality.

http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/05/05/osama-bin-laden-already-becoming-the-new-roswell/

"Pieczenik worked for the State Department under Henry Kissinger and is supposedly still a consultant for the State Department, though their PR department was of no use tracking him down. The Defense Department said the last he worked for them was under President Jimmy Carter."

Also, please explain how infowars.com is a primary source? Pieczenik was merely a guest, not an employee, etc.

KenricAshe (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim that is in the article right now says that he was a deputy assistant secretary of state for multiple administrations. This source isn't sufficient to support the quote currently in the article. There have been a few other reliable sources that have mentioned him working in the state department in some capacity already - but no one has found a secondary source that can confirm the info about him being a DASAS that gives any details at all. If people feel it's the best thing to do, I could change the article to state that he worked for the state department under Kissinger and remove the other info, but so far it seemed like opinion had been against that. Kevin (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to truncate it in a few days if no one can come up with anything. If no one else does first. So far, about the only thing I really know about Pieczenik is that he is a remarkable vendor of his own persona as being some kind of important insider despite an utter absence of 3rd-party exposition which does not rely upon the subject himself for the details. Exactly how far "under" Kissinger, et al, was he? I.e., did he report to Kissinger? Was he ever in the same building with the man at the same time? At present, this article is as threadbare as an empty closet. Two disparate one-liners in Forbes and the NYT hardly amount to adequate verification of background. --Mike18xx (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is not so relevant which position(s) he actually held - when you look at his video he says that he had taken a high level Soviet official to visit a US aircraft carrier to show what the US was capable of. If this is true then he had very high level access because that's not something every Tom, Dick, or Harry can arrange. If it is a lie then he's on some mission that we yet have to discover. 2001:8003:A0B9:EF00:D547:8048:906:77B0 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

In response to the stuff you have added since I last responded to this: Infowars is not a reliable source per the policies of WP:RS. If you disagree and would like an uninvolved editor to comment on this, you can ask for someone to look at it at the relevant noticeboard - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

I can edit the text of the article to reflect only the information that is actually contained in those citations, but I hadn't previously done so because there appeared to be a lot of disagreement about it earlier. Please note though that making such an edit wouldn't address Mike's issues - he was specifically addressing the people who in the AfD discussion pointed to Pieczenik's state department affiliation as evidence of his notability. Kevin (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

His notability has already been established by various other means. This edit request is a separate issue from the AfD. I'm not even concerned about that anymore because the consensus is obvious to keep. As for disagreement on making this edit request, I'm the first one to have requested it so how can there be any disagreement? In fact I expect Mike will be quite satisfied to have most of Pieczenik's State Department credentials removed. KenricAshe (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that previously the article only had a bare statement that he had worked for the state department under one administration, and it had been changed to its current state more than once by other people. I have no problem with your suggested edit, and will put it in. If someone else objects they can always revert it. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit that reflects pretty much what you've asked for. Kevin (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"at some point" haha okay well I'll settle for that ... for now. Later when the dust has settled I'll submit a request for more details e.g. Kissinger and also his Defense Department cred. I appreciate your neutral handling of this, although I do ask for future reference just on a personal level that you consider that not all conspiracy theories are crud. Many conspiracies over time have been proven, usually decades after it's too late for the criminals to be prosecuted. And there is a fundamental flaw in Wikipedia's definition of reliable news: "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." First of all when it comes to matters of WAR it's obvious how they've been infiltrated by corporate/military officials posing as "journalists" (I bet I can find a Wikipedia page about *that* haha). And second, NO one really knows what truly goes on at the very highest levels of security in this world. But I understand that's a Catch-22. Truthiness is one of the most interesting things about Wikipedia, or all human knowledge for that matter. Thanks again. KenricAshe (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am not "quite satisfied" -- although there's little I can do about it as this point. My twitchy nose scents more than a faint whiff of flimflammery going on here; and the rapid decline of the previously preposterous article back into "boring stub with assorted extra bits and free-advertising for ghost-written novels" (now that it has mainly "served its purpose" as propaganda grist for the Alex Jones junket in the few days during and after his appearance) does nothing to address that.--Mike18xx (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it started off bad with noobs who don't bother to read any of the wikipedia rules (and I must admit as a semi-noob I wasn't fully aware of the protocol and I appreciate the guidance and as you've seen I do my part to support that and pass it on), but ultimately this is about Steve Pieczenik not Alex Jones, and "assorted extra bits" doesn't do justice at all to his non-author credentials which have been supported by multiple references. KenricAshe (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is my strong impression that only two categories of people really care at all about Pieczenik, and they are: 1) Pieczenik's publishing enterprises, and 2) 9/11 conspiracy-promoters. Prior to last November, a Pieczenik article did not even exist. Prior to this April, it did not exist as more than a stub. Presently, the article lists everything but that one salient fact (his appearance on Alex Jones) which brought about all the notoriety and the "invasion" of SPAs (which itself is arguably as interesting, as a back-story, for the subsequent historian).--Mike18xx (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia pages only got entered by people who had no interest in a subject, Wikipedia would be very small indeed. It's interesting that you point out how there already was a full Pieczenik page an entire month before the bin Laden announcement. So what are you saying, that Alex Jones somehow knew from his crystal ball or something that it would happen a month later? And how do you know he had anything at all to do with the April version? Pieczenik's first appearance on his show was way back in 2002. Also you left out at least two other categories: 3) The people who were actually responsible for 9/11, and 4) 9/11 Debunkers like you who can't handle the more than probable reality that it was an inside job. Maybe we need to get more German and Japanese editors in here because they certainly question the official story. Wikipedia is a global project is it not? It would be nice if historians could be exposed to both sides of the story. Because Wikipedia = Truth, right? KenricAshe (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

TOTALLY AGREE. AND NOW MIKE SHUTS UP. MAGICALLY. HELLO GOVT AGENTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.18.220 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dang; I fell off the wagon. Or the checks stopped coming -- or whatever else it is the batshit insane crank freaks see fit to believe in. With fabulously furry freaky friends like you, huckster moolah-maven Stevy P. doesn't need enemas.--Mike18xx (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to Replace Primary Source With Non-Primary (Forbes)

I didn't notice earlier that the primary source had not been replaced with the Forbes article.

Please replace this:

Pieczenik served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State at some point<ref name="nyt2">{{citation|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/08/us/seat-of-power-and-woe.html|accessdate=May 5, 2011}}</ref> <ref name="obio"/>

With this:

Pieczenik served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State at some point<ref name="nyt2">{{citation|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/08/us/seat-of-power-and-woe.html|accessdate=May 5, 2011}}</ref> <ref name="forbes">{{citation|url=http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/05/05/osama-bin-laden-already-becoming-the-new-roswell/|accessdate=May 8, 2011}}</ref>

KenricAshe (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Done elektrikSHOOS 09:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Triforcharity, 11 May 2011

Please change the wording from "Pieczenik served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State at some point" to " Pieczenik served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management in the period 1978-1979, under Secretary of State Cyrus Vance.

This can be verified by the Office of the Historian of the State Department. (www.history.state.us)

Triforcharity (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a direct link? I'm looking at the website (history.state.gov) and not able to come up with it using their search function - but I can't come up with any results using the search terms "Steve Pieczenik" or "Pieczenik." Once you can, I'll edit it in. I'm not doubting you - that was the administration I figured he served in - it's just easier to reference it properly with a direct link to the source. (I'm also mostly on a mobile device, sorry for any typos etc.) Kevin (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, it was through an email with the Office of the Historian. I will email them to see if they have any paperwork they can send me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triforcharity (talk • contribs) 12:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for brevity; gfx card fried itself and doesn't work for >30 seconds at a time. I do not believe personal correspondence can be cited on wiki, am not sure. I will turn your edit request back to unanswered so someone else can chime in. Kevin (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Aldo Moro kidnapping

He was in the "crisis group" with Francesco Cossiga in 1978, dealing with Red Brigades on the case of Aldo Moro kidnapping. See: [2] --79.45.191.100 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Aldo Moro was kidnapped and killed by NATO intelligence, working with Italian intelligence. This was clarified by an Italian court and is mentioned in the book NATO's Secret Armies by Daniele Ganser, a book which is based on his Phd thesis in history. To claim that Pieczenik was involved in negotiations with the Red Brigades makes immediately clear why they were not successful. They were not meant to succeed. Mregelsberger (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steve Pieczenik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=P
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=P

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Web site down

Steve Pieczenik's personal Web site home page has been replaced with just the words "page ok", possibly in connection with his recent announcements on the Alex Jones Show regarding the series of WikiLeaks releases of John Podesta's emails and the turmoil it is creating in the Hillary Clinton campaign. However, the most recent version of the site from 8 October 2016 can still be viewed at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Strangely, the links on the archived page still link to current pages at his site, so it appears that just the home page may have been disabled. Instead of marking it as a "dead link", I would suggest waiting a few weeks to see if was just taken down for maintenance or some other innocuous reason. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 23:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I just checked the site and it works fine currently. It was down a couple days ago and some other editor removed the link entirely. It was at that point that I restored the link, marked it as dead, with a link to archive versions at archive.org. Should that happen in the future, such handling is better than leading readers click a link which sends them to nonsense, particularly when there is heightened interest in him. Marteau (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Subject is a conspiracy theorist

Steve Pieczenik promotes the theory that Sandy Hook was a false flag, he says that Bin Laden actually died of Marfan Syndrome. His more recent hits include the assertion that the 2020 US Presidential election was stolen and he knows this because the fraudulent ballots were watermarked with "the blockchain" - that FT article could be a fourth source describing him as a conspiracy theorist.

For non-reliable sources please see Steve talking about the counter coup he helped organise that is apparently going on in the US right now.

In what world is he not? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

References for conspiracy theorist claim

There appears to be some confusion about the nature of the references so I'm expounding here. The first reference provided absolutely mentions Steve. The quote is:

A guy treads on dangerous ground when he attempts to separate wacky from wackiest, but the most inventive bin Laden conspiracy theory to hit our radar was proposed by Steve Pieczenik, former deputy assistant secretary of state, on Alex Jones’ paranoia-themed syndicated radio show.

- it then goes on to talk about his theory.

I'm really not sure why anyone is taking exception to the Washington Post reference. There's a paragraph highlighting Steve's conspiracist beliefs. It's an Analysis piece, which is editorially separate from an opinion piece, written by people considered to be experts in the subject they're discussing (just in case that's what we're quibbling over).

As to the Yahoo piece, I went into it expecting it to be an opinion piece, it isn't. The objection appears to be "this journalist called Steve a conspiracy theorist and it's just her, so obviously it's incorrect". As I've demonstrated, we're up to three now.

The fourth source I've found above is a piece written by the editor of FT Alphaville. They don't explicitly label Steve a conspiracy theorist but it's an article about a conspiracy, prominently featuring Steve and his conspiracy theory. I really struggle to find recent coverage of Steve which isn't either discussing conspiracy theories or The Gateway Pundit/Newsmax/Infowars promoting his theories. Regardless of whatever work he did as a younger man, being a conspiracy theorist is his job now. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Quibbling over definition of 'conspiracy theorist'

It was proposed that we not use the term 'conspiracy theorist' in the lede because For a theory to beconspiracy it must have "circular logic" that is unable to be proven false. A claim that can be proven false is not conspiracy. - it's not up to us to decide whether or not the reliable sources have got it right. It's only up to us to write what the reliable sources claim. So I don't think that argument should hold any weight. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)