Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Unsorted text

Just curious: Where does the material about O'Neill's involvement in capturing Ramzi Yousef come from? Are there people, articles, to refer to about this? I would like to know more. Is there additional material? -RK

Can this be put among the external links? --Striver 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point, since it but partially duplicates the more comprehensive pre-existing link listed:
--KGF0 ( T | C ) 10:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to me to have a negative bias towards John P. O'Neill. Sep,8,06

Its hard to explain why a man was good enough to get a head of an US intelligence service. Even only a few internals might really know why, but surely arent allowed to talk about it. Think about, bad news more often makes it to the masses. Good news rarely does. Pure data, like a CV, is most often dusty and boring information. Only if you are able to wake that "papers" up to live by some means you will be able to improve the balancing. Quotes from others, unveiled hidden links or the involvement in creation of true history would make a difference. Hard job - and i really dont know if thats a path that leads to somewhere or just vanishes somewhere whilst trying to go it. It's sort of a tragic story so far, but you cant change the facts, not even because you whished it for that long term official. The Wikipedia designed to collect informations and bring it into an adequate form, not to alter it on desire. --Alexander.stohr 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Bush administration's head-in-sand 'approach'" strikes me as not quite NPOV.SuperToad64 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Militants"

Is there a reason why terrorists are called militants in this article? Mere "militancy" is not a crime. patsw 01:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline

The number of hits registered has increased from a few hundred to 9000 after the broacast of the Frontline show. Path to 9/11 miniseries essentially told the same story. Both stories portray dedicated people who were on the trail of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers and Al Queda but were thwarted by bureacracy with tragic results. The Frontline piece in particular drew a map showing connections uncovered by o'Neils work, but gives the impression that powerful forces wanted o'Neill forced out and emerging intelligence kept away from him before he could fully uncover the emerging plot. Redhanker (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding required

This is information is not sufficient enough, It should be more, try to expand article according to Wikipedia policies with proper citations, if you allow my self I would be happy to help you and I can certainly help you in expanding it.-- Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 11:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I removed the section "Criticism" because the comments/criticism by Michael Scheuer is totally specious. He criticizes Richard Clarke and John O'Neill "called O'Neill and Richard Clarke the "two principal authors of September 11".[1] This statement he bases on the refusal of Clarke and O'Neill to agree to his offers to have bin Laden assassinated.

I believe Scheuer, if he actually said this, is lying. US Government Agencies, on their own, cannot sanction an assassination of anybody. Both Clark and O'Neill knew that and would have told him so. Assassination by all agents was declared illegal by a directive signed by President Reagan. To override this Presidential directive takes a subsequent Presidential finding and revocation on the prohibition of use of assassination. Boslad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonlad (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors cannot remove material if material is relevant to an article's topic, presented with proper weight, and supported by reliable sources, simply because they disagree with a source. This is not a valid rationale for content removal. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
Also, please use the preview function to preview your edits, or check them after saving them so as to avoid or fix errors like the dangling characters left above the World Trade Center section here.
Lastly, see Help:Section for how how to create new talk page discussions, since this discussion has nothing to do with the one on expanding the article above it. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such an attack against a command and control node would require a lethal Presidential finding, however, such findings are not created out of thin air. They are proposed and coordinated in a multi-agency process under the supervision of the NSC; then approved and signed by the President prior to implementation. Scheuer has many problems, but in this case, his claim was not specious. Suggest before you make a specious claim yourself you become knowledgeable about the details.

WTC Role

Is there any reliable information on his role in the WTC, and particularly on the day of the bombing? Was O'Neill active in rescue attempts, or killed early on?101.98.175.68 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a close look at source 5?

I'm not familiar with the subject of O'Neill or his career enough to really know, but just a cursory read of the source in question makes me doubt it's veracity, neutrality and is just badly written. It and 13 seem to push an agenda with every sentence, and the writing is so terrible I can barely tell what it is it's trying to convey. Source 5 would be Kolker, Robert (December 17, 2001). "O'Neill Versus Osama". New York.

While we're at it, source 13: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jul/4/20060704-110004-4280r/ looks to be a blogging/editorial piece at best. Hardly what I'd call a credible verifiable source for an article. and it's written with a definite bias that is among other things, detrimental to it's ability to convey factual information and inherently unverifiable speculation on the part of a mostly anonymous author.Licourtrix (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy? Seriously?

Surely O'Neill deserves a better "legacy" section than merely a re-labeled "criticism" section, amIright? While Scheuer's remarks are certainly worthy of note, this seems to offer undue weight, IMO. O'Neill may have been a careerist, or he may have been a flawed hero struggling against bureaucracy. I don't know; I'm not here to take a side.

What I do know, however, is that he was ringing the alarm bell concerning radical Islamic terrorism way before anybody else in the intelligence community. Surely THAT should be a big part of his legacy, no?

For the sake of balance, I suggest not removing Scheuer's comments, but perhaps cutting the length down a bit and inserting elsewhere in the article and offering a more robust "legacy" section detailing how he's actually remembered inside and out of the intelligence community. My understanding is that whatever his shortcomings, he's regarded as someone who knew of the true al Qaeda threat long before others were focusing on terrorism.

Of course, this would require a large change to the article and I would like to toss this out there to assess interest. Thoughts? Blinkfan (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Scheuer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_P._O%27Neill