Talk:Wen Ho Lee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Seriousness of the charges[edit]

It might help if we add a statement that the mishandling charges, one of which Lee pleaded guilty to, were serious charges. Of course others have stated that this kind of thing happened all the time at the Lab, and nobody else was ever prosecuted, maybe because nobody else had their computer forensically analyzed to the level that Wen Ho Lee's computer was. But as far as the spying charges, yes, these were ridiculous, and were never formally brought, by the way, because what was initially thought to be evidence was disproven.

In reality, the government was thrilled to get a guilty plea to a single charge, because it saved face for their prosecution efforts, to a small degree. At least it gave them a tiny handle by which to spin the story.

About User:Deane's question below about the uniformity of belief, I answer that further down, but I do suspect there will be more questions, as many people are indeed misinformed about this case.

-- User:Natch

How uniform is the belief that Lee did nothing wrong? I've read accounts that, while nothing could be proven, his activites were incredibly suspicious and there were many, many unresolved questions about why he had thousands of sensitive documents in his personal possession.

I think the article needs to reflect that there is some question about exactly what he was doing. The article seems very tilted in favor of Lee, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

-- User:Deane

You may have a point. I'll try to check out Trulock's version of events. Goodralph 03:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's the FBI's press release regarding the resolution of the case:
The short answer to the question is that there remains controversy over Lee's actions. Here's an article from the Washington Post regarding the difficulty of proving espionage charges involving Chinese operatives:
The "falsely accused" line is not neutral. 20:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, there's no need for conspiracy speculation on this one. Did you ever see an interview with this guy? He is a simple man, a scientist who loved his job, and the simple fact that his main regret is still not being able to do his science anymore should speak volumes.

Besides... a Taiwanese native giving nuclear secrets to the mainland Chinese? It's ludicrous.

Not so ludicrous - there are lots of people in Taiwan who are Chinese nationalists. 21:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The Chinese Nationalists in Taiwan are Anti-Communists. --Will314159 18:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Chinese sympathizers do exist. Soda80 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese is not the same as Chinese. Ask a Taiwanese student where they are from, and they will tell you "Taiwan." The majority will not say "Republic of China," because "Republic of China" has the word "China" in it.

Lee came to the US since 1965. At the time the jury had indicted him in 1999, he had lived here for 34 years. That makes him a naturalized US citizen. Not some guy fresh off a boat from Mainland China. Even if he were from Mainland China, which he isn't, that doesn't make him a communist or a sympathizer of communist ideas.

If someone else who was 34 and born in the US were to do the exact same things this guy did, the whole thing probably wouldn't even have been brought to a trial to begin with. In addition to the 34 years Lee had lived in the US, he also had the experience of living in Taiwan, which is a lot more anti-China than the US (because China actively kills their reporters, harasses their tourists, shoots missles during their elections, etc.). Taiwan gets flak from China frequently, and it drives em up the wall.

It's more likely, don't you think, that Lee would appreciate the values of either his adopted country, the US, or of his country of birth, Taiwan, than the country that is launching missles at his country of birth? He did not live in China, his parents were Taiwanese, and no, "Chinese" are not all the same. There are deep personal belief differences in the value and worth of human life and liberty between China and Taiwan.

It is highly unlikely that someone who came to the U.S. and was born in Taiwan would be a Pro-Communist sympathizer. Sorry but really, China and Taiwan do not see eye to eye on a ton of human rights issues, and it wasn't until recently (last 5 years or so) that Taiwanese really considered it possible to have peace with China. Even today there's a lot of people that don't believe it will happen. In modern times, some of the population of Taiwan try to seek out peace between China...but Taiwan is what, 6 hours driving across from tip to tip? Taiwan does not have a choice. If they truly oppose China, with China getting stronger and the U.S. not backing up Taiwanese independence, Taiwan would be obliterated if China really decided to attack. The difference in military power and money between Taiwwan and China is huge. So, I wouldn't say that it's that the two countries agree on communism, independence, or human rights, that has drawn them together; the "neutrality" is out of necessity on Taiwan's part, and somewhat superficial. (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a stitch up. (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Typical Wiki bias[edit]

This article is typical of how Wikipedia is taken over by special interest groups. You know, I don't know what Wen Ho Lee was up to actually, and neither does anyone else but him. I also understand the passion among activists, mostly Asian Americans, that this is all about "fighting racism". I think they are overzealous in this regard -- look at that Hatfield or whatever his name is who was implicated in the Anthrax scare. His life was similarly ruined, and he had no ethnic group to back him up with charges of "racism". Face it, the government screws up and the media are like vultures. And for all we know, both may be guilty. Nevertheless, what Wikipedia is for is laying out the facts and variety of viewpoints about an issue. Unfortunately, disiniterested people who want to promote NPOV just don't have the tenacity to fight mobs of special interests who are fanatically dedicated to highjacking specific pages. That's why highly controversial areas are always bad, and always tend towards fringy views and are highly censored of critical viewpoints. Witness the fanatics who protect Mumia from accusations that he might have just murdered a cop, or Chomsky from his own foot in his own mouth, or George Bush from the truth. This is another classic page owned literally by Wen Ho Lee's "activist" special interest group supporters. Soda80 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying some facts of the case[edit]

Lee did do something wrong, which was to mishandle sensitive documents. The mistake is to think that automatically means he did more than this.

As far as the belief being uniform, facts are probably more important than beliefs, and most of the beliefs out there among the public, including the beliefs held by some Wikipedia contributors, are based on erroneous and inflammatory media articles which need to be viewed with great suspicion. Frankly many of the beliefs out there about Wen Ho Lee are simply wrong.

There has never been any full correction of many of the errors out there. Let's take a few of them:

First, the one you mention, the belief that Lee had thousands of sensitive documents in his personal possession. If you read reports carefully, you will find only opinion columns and anonymous bulletin board postings state this. Carefully reported factual articles do not state that he took documents home. As far has having sensitive documents in his workplace, that was his job. He backed up files stored on a system rated for classified data onto a system not rated for classified data, and then he downloaded those files onto tapes. As far as we know, these tapes never left the secure area of the Lab before being discarded (in an irresponsible and foolish act, to be sure) by Wen Ho Lee in a dumpster.

Second, you may have read (and believed what you read) that he "repeatedly" used his badge to try to access the secure area after having had his access revoked. This is true. However, what you do not read in the articles is that his boss had at that point told him that his access had been reinstated, and his badge would now work.

Third you may have read that he "suspiciously" worked during lunch and even at night. What you don't read in the articles is that scientists at Los Alamos commonly do this, to the extent even that the library at Los Alamos is open 24 hours a day. Seriously, a 24-hour-a-day library. That says a lot about work habits at the Lab. Yet authors of articles about the case want you to think there is something suspicious about one of those scientists working at 10:00 P.M. The only explanation for this is that the writers of many articles on this case either did not do adequate research, or had an interest in making the articles sensationalist, or both.

Fourth there are less nefarious explanations for what he did. At the time of his backing up his files, the file system at Los Alamos, CFS, was due for an upgrade. So there is reason to think that he may have wanted to prepare a backup before that. But articles about the case don't mention this. And I have in my possession a pamphlet from the Los Alamos security department that covers computer security, and it states very clearly that users are responsible for keeping their own files backed up.

There are many more details about the case and many instances where articles have listed suspicious points that people might still have questions about. Bring them on, we'll cover them. But I don't think they all belong in the main article.

As far as FBI views on the matter, I don't think FBI, especially Freeh who had to defend the fact that the case was moving forward, had a neutral viewpoint on this case back in the timeframe of the quotes below.

As far as Trulock views on the matter, I would guess he doesn't want to embarass himself, so he will no doubt pointedly avoid reminding people that the Kindred Spirit suspicions of Wen Ho Lee did not pan out when the document pointed to the downstream contractor, and will instead emphasize nefarious-looking interpretations of incompletely reported facts. The second phase of the case, which was probably the most flawed part of the case, was totally separate and I don't think Notra Trulock was involved or would know much beyond what he heard from the media and from the FBI/DOJ, which were, as I pointed out, not exactly reliable sources of information.

Lee was exonerated on all but the mishandling charges. And even those were trumped up by the redesignation of the files after the fact. But they were serious charges, and the article should reflect that. But on the central point many people still may mistakenly think is controversial, whether Lee was a spy or not, there is no longer any controversy among those who have studied the case. Again, though, I would caution that a few interested parties like Freeh-era FBI folks and maybe Trulock himself should be ruled out as authorities on this.

-- User:Natch


"With this information in hand, the government then retroactively redesignated the data Lee had copied, changing it from its former designation of PARD (Protect As Restricted Data), to a new designation of Secret, ..." - Isn't there a law against this or something? Was there any outcry about this fact, or any criticism of this tactic? Could this get an elaboration in the article? 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

For clarification, see this article from the Albuquerque Journal:
Basically, the government laboratories create a huge amount of data. Data has to be reviewed in order to determine whether or not it's classified. In order to deal with this, PARD means that data should be treated as restricted until it is determined that it's not. Upon review, authorities can classify it as unclassified, confidential or secret (the highest level). According to this article, one of the things that got Lee into trouble was that he removed PARD labels from data & removed it from the lab, which is a violation of regulations by itself. To make matters worse, upon review, authoritities determined that the data, which is assumed to be restricted in the first place, wasn't harmless unclassified data, but secret. 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
citation needed. second of all, they did the same thing to Thomas Andrews Drake. they rifle through thousands of documents, find a few of them that look bad, and then get them classified as Top Secret after they have already indicted him. Its absolutely ludicrous from a constitutional or civil liberties perspective. it gives the government unlimited power, since the president has the authority to classify anything he wants to. Besides all that, 18 USC 793 doesnt even use the word 'classified', it would have been up for a jury to decide if the information was really threatening to national security, not the FBI, not Bill Richardson, not Christopher Cox. Decora (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?[edit]

I don't feel like this article is written from a neutral point of view. Just because Wen Ho Lee pleaded to reduced charges doesn't mean that he's innocent of wrongdoing, nor does it mean that there isn't disagreement over his actions. Louis Freeh made it very clear that he felt there was wrongdoing (see sources in the article itself) and indicated that he allowed Lee to plea in order to determine the disposition of the information in question. I recommend indicating that the neutrality of this article is in question.

For instance, from this article:

Among the activities Freeh is expected to cite, according to a source familiar with his testimony, is information that in 1982 Lee made contact with a suspected spy. Freeh is expected to say that authorities suspected Lee was less than truthful when questioned about that contact.
Freeh also will describe how the FBI began a preliminary investigation of Lee in 1994, after it became known that he had an alleged relationship with the head of China's nuclear weapons design program and did not report the relationship.
Freeh will tell congressional investigators that in 1998, Lee acknowledged in an interview that he had been approached by Chinese nuclear scientists.

None of this content is reflected in the article. The entire article is written as if Lee was wrongly accused, and that his eventual plea bargain was a total exoneration. 07:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Reduced charges doesn't mean he is innocent of wrongdoing. It is like those financial companies that are threatened with federal law suits ... they just pay a big fine and at the same time do not admit to any wrongdoing. -- 12:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. This entry is partial and must carry a POV warning. 11:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree that stuff could be mentiond. but you must also point out that Louis Freeh was operating out of political motivations based on mass hysteria and media hype and congressional political games, not out of a legitimate concern for national security. there were literally dozens of people at the lab doing 'suspicious things', and they picked lee out of a hat, said "he doesnt deserve civil liberties" and that they would eventually get him "for spitting on the sidewalk" (actual quotes from government officials), and railroaded him. when they use things like 'He lied about it under questioning', you need to go watch a video on youtube called 'never talk to the police'. Wen Ho Lee didn't even know about the fifth amendment or why we have it. they asked him millions of questions in hourslong interviews, whose purpose they lied about. and then when his wording was slightly off they called him a liar. if he took information about equations used in college mathematics, they decided taht was 'classified', and called him a liar and spy for it. this is what those 50-whatever charges were built on, junk like that. if you peel away the FBI hype and PR character assassination, there are very simple explanations for this stuff, including his meeting with 'alleged spies'. think about it. they had to drop over 95% of their charges, because they had no evidence. the judge himself excoriated the FBI for lying to him both about the seriousness of the crimes and the evidence against Dr Lee. A top security guy at LANL later wrote a letter describing how this was all a bunch of racist nonsense. all the accusations made by Freeh etc are part of the story, but they not the whole story. it would be better to even split them out of this article and have a whole separate article, United States v Wen Ho Lee. Decora (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not neutral point of view[edit]

This is a pretty lousy article. The standard story from those in the loop is that Wen Ho Lee knowingly illegally copied classified secrets onto tapes that he took off-site. A common theory is that he kept the tapes so that he'd be able to sell them to his Chinese contacts if he ever got laid off (he was threatened with being fired in 1996). BTW, all of this is public knowledge.

Here's an interesting blog about related affairs (it's not my source, but it's interesting) --

As for why he didn't get charged, the answer is simple: the government was never interested in jailing him -- they just wanted to know to whom he planned to sell the secrets. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

If it's "public knowledge" then it should be possible to embed copious amounts of citations into this article for these various points. I tossed a citation request into a recent addition along these lines but this article could use citations throughout. Bryan 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

=name of warhead= added W88. --Will314159 18:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

your url is broken. here is an actual working url. . actually if you go to google and type in wen ho lee

you will get a lot of interesting discussions by what appear to be LANL workers. they are not journalistic, they are just opinions. but they are kind of interesting. Decora (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic vs Republic of China[edit]

It's not clear from the article whether he was accused of spying for the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China.

Spying for Taiwan?[edit]

The possibility that Lee was spying for Taiwan should at least be mentioned. It was raised many times when the case was in the news. Dynzmoar 11:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

considering he successfully sued those news companies for printing blatantly wrong stuff about him, i would be very cautious of believing anything in them. Decora (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


The U.S., unlike Singapore or Hong Kong, requires all its citizens to report a surname, and a full name in the form of "first name" "middle name" and "last name". As this subject is American, and there is no American who renders his name order otherwise, I really don't see why someone would assume this person to be the sole exception. This aside - it is clear from the repeated references to "Lee" and not "Wen" that the surname is Lee and not Wen as it is standard practice in English to refer to individuals by their surnames. The link in pinyin does not serve to indicate surname, but to link to the specific surname article (NOTE: Li (surname) is a general article that exists because the English language does not have tonal specificity, not a specific surname article and should be linked nowhere).

See Template talk:Chinese name for the existing discussion and please let the article sit until the issue is settled.--Jiang 10:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Very wrong. There are a great many Chinese Americans who give their name surname first. An example is Liu Qi-Chao. Another is Wu Man. Another is Chou Wen-chung. Unless you provide a better explanation for the removal of the clarification template, it's going back in. Badagnani 10:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone outside the music (ie Chinese culturalist) community?

My explanation: it is clear from the repeated references to "Lee" and not "Wen" that the surname is Lee and not Wen as it is standard practice in English to refer to individuals by their surnames. Please refute this. Explain to me what kind of person would still be confused. This is better responded to at Template talk:Chinese name. --Jiang 10:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You were wrong, and really should gracefully admit it. My specialty is music and those are the Chinese people I mainly have knowledge of. If you wish me to seek examples of Chinese American non-musicians who put their surname first I will do so. But I don't think anything I do or say, or any evidence will persuade you, as someone knowledgeable about Chinese culture and language, that people unfamiliar with this subject do require some assistance in easily determining which is the surname and which is the given name, without hunting in the way you propose above. Badagnani 10:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit my comment above was incorrect, in the "common name" sense. (On legal/official documents, credit cards etc. it's still first + last). And no, more searching will not convince me unless the statement "it is clear from the repeated references to "Lee" and not "Wen" that the surname is Lee and not Wen as it is standard practice in English to refer to individuals by their surnames" is thoroughly refuted to be on shaky grounds. I don't believe this to be "hunting" as Ive mentioned at Template talk:Chinese name. Fullname and not surname is the first thing the reader wants to look at. --Jiang 11:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with each individual's preference, aside from government documents, for how their name is represented on their business card, on their website, their company, etc. Category:Chinese American scientists shows several more who use the surname first. This wild variation in surname first or last does call for clarification in the header of each article, so that readers who are not very familiar with these conventions will know instantly which is the surname and which is the given name. Linking the surname in the pinyin doesn't help for people using a printout of the article, although a parenthetical citation after the name saying "(surname Zhang)" would also work. The template, however, is not problematic in my opinion; on the contrary it is very helpful in quickly telling the reader which is the family name, and (in the case where a Wikipedia article about that family name exists) giving them more about that family name. Badagnani 11:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Of the "Chinese American scientists" provided, only three out of the list were rendered surname first (and one is cerrently based in Hong Kong where it is the convention to render surname first while another offers both forms; remaining is Fang Lizhi who became famous in China before fleeing to the US). I wouldn't characterize this as "wild"; it is unusual for Americans to have surname first. This is besides my point.

My point remains that it is standard English convention in formal writing to refer to a person (in subsequent references after the first) by his surname only and that anyone with common sense can sight this and conclude with confiendence that the single name being used is indeed the surname. If common sense is followed, then there is no room for confusion in these specific instances where the name order is, after all, not unusual for the westerner. I acknowledge that if the name order is surname first, then some may not be able to immediately sight this if they are totally unaware of the convention - this is not an issue here.

I don't see the need for the reader to find the surname right away, even before seeing the full name and other fundamental details. The full name is more important than the surname - that should come first.--Jiang 11:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the most important things to remember when editing wikipedia... common sense is never common. This article is yes American, but it deals with a Chinese national, and his full name in Chinese is rendered in standard Chinese order. The template is a simple non-intrusive way to help those people who DO NOT have the common sense to put two and two together, and understand what his last name is. I agree with Badagnani. Even if a Chinese name is ordered in traditional American order, the simple addition of a template is a non-intrusive simple way to give their last name, for all Chinese people, so no one has to deal with any possible confusion like that.
Jiang, I understand your reasoning for feeling that this information is redundant, but as a template, it's not exclusively part of the article, but rather a secondary notation of meta-information. The two are in entirely different scopes of providing information. Regardless of anything you think about if it should be removed, the simple answer is that all edit wars expend wikipedia resources that are better spent elsewhere. If you wish to debate this and seek a change from the status quo, then leave the article in the status quo, while you seek justification and consensus for your side. By entering into an edit war, you're crystalizing your opposition against you, and you won't achieve any significant advancement this way.
As the information is a piece of meta-information that quickly removes ambiguity, and confusion in readers who may not know better, I should remain. Regardless of any of your justifications about the information being redundant, or that only a little common sense need be applied to understand it correctly... not everyone is going to have the same common sense as you, and this nice little header prevents these sorts of confusions. Your position is that the information is redunant? Our position is that it's easily accessible important information. Until you can give a decent reason why having easily accessible important information is not a good idea, it should stay the way it is. --Puellanivis 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1) This individual is not a Chinese national. He is a U.S. citizen. and 2) The full name is not rendered in standard Chinese order but in American order. My entire point rests on these two facts, especially the second one, so I believe you have somewhat misunderstood me and not fully understood the article. I also stated that Li (surname) serves as a disambiguation and should be linked from nowhere, which you proceeded to link.

I still don't understand how there is any possible confusion in this article. Can you elaborate? What kind of common sense would fail to clarify a situation that is not confusing in the first place? My position is not merely that it is redundant, but that the surname of the person is of relevance in the article itself and should not serve as a disambiguation header (which serves to put articles relative to each other).

As for being "meta-information", when and what do we include something as "meta-information"? All the other headers I've seen concern the subject of the article itself, so that any readers who have been misdirected can quickly go elsewhere without having read the article itself. Finding out what the surname is can wait, can't it?--Jiang 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1) he's a naturalized United States citizen, and his name is given in Chinese order in the article: "Wen Ho Lee (Chinese: 李文和; pinyin: Lǐ Wénhé; born December 21, 1939)"
If Li (surname) is a disambiguation link, then you should take that up with the template itself, not with this article. Effecting changes on this article to work around effecting correct changes in a template is unjustifiable.
2) I don't care what order the name is presented in. People who fail to have common sense about this stuff are unexplainable, because they lack the common knowledge that we all accept as unnecessary to explain. There was at one time an issue raised with a version of an IQ test that asked what color an orange was. There are people who eat green oranges, because that's where they grow, and it's just common sense to them that an orange is green.
You are seeking to impose a POV argument upon this article by stating that because you understand it to be a simple matter of determining the person's last name, that everyone will be able to determine the last name appropriately. This should never be taken as an assumption. And in the process of over correction, a person may assume that this article is talking about a person with the surname "Wen" and given name "Ho Lee". If disambiguation is used for Chinese names, then this name should follow the pattern and provide a disambiguation of what the surname is, regardless of how aparent you may assume it to be. --Puellanivis 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The characters and pinyin are of no relevance to people without knowledge of Chinese. Should we also add a notice "Note: Taiwanese, name not given in Hanyu Pinyin. Pinyin name would be Wenhe Li."? "Wen Ho Lee" is in western order and that is our main concern. "Li Wenhe" will be beyond most people's comprehension.

I doubt the people who bother to read Wikipedia articles are this dumb (I can't know for sure), but if they are, then they will assume the surname is Lee because in America and elswhere surname=last name. End of confusion. I think Badagnani's contention is over a slightly more informed group of people with some vague indication that Chinese surnames can be rendered first and are unsure whether the convention is being followed in this case. The indications would be 1) repeated references to the person using the surname only as is the standard in formal English writing, 2) rendering of the pinyin name of the person in the same exact order, 3) linking of surname article in the pinyin field, and 4) references to family members sharing the same surname. I doubt a person who was well-read enough to know about Chinese surnames not being rendered last would be dumb enough not to get the implications.--Jiang 00:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:There is no common sense. The consensus is against you... this article will remain as is percisely for the reason that the template provides for relevant and notable information about the article. You have failed to advance any other reason for the removal except: "It's easy enough to figure out." Yes, well, maybe for you. But not everyone reading the English wikipedia is aware of English rules of writing. Your statement "I doubt a person who was well-read enough to know about Chinese surnames not being rendered last would be dumb enough not to get the implications." shows a fundamental lack of understand about the audience who Wikipedia is targeted for. Wikipedia is used by thousands if not millions of people world-wide to gain information. To advance the assertion that "they can figure it out" is not acceptable. Wikipedia strives for no Original Research, and is active against promoting speculation and unreferenced inference of information from data. The information provided in this article by the surname template is relevant, notable, and important. To say that this one simple sentence does not deserve to be put into this article, is to make the argument that you find the information to be so patently obvious that anyone can figure it out. The assumption on Wikipedia should not be "people can just figure it out on their own". To do so entirely underestimates the audience of Wikiepdia, and presumes that everyone is as well aquainted with the material as you. --Puellanivis 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the recent tfd debate and template disucssion, consensus is not against me.

If there is really no common sense, then the first paragraph should be rewritten as "Wen Ho Lee (Chinese language: 李文和; pinyin romanization system: Lǐ Wénhé (tones are for Mandarin pronounciation purposes); born December (12 month of the year) 21, AD (or Common era) 1939) is a male human living on planet Earth. Born in Taiwan, an island in the Pacific Ocean off the continent of Asia, he immigrated to the United States (U.S.) and became a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is a U.S. government-owned laboratory in New Mexico (not California!) run by the University of California. Lee was accused of stealing secrets about the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal for the People's Republic of China (which should not be confused with Lee's homeland, the Republic of China) in December 1999. After (U.S. government) investigators dropped these original accusations, the (U.S.) government conducted a new investigation and charged Lee with improper handling of restricted data, to which he pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain (deal to prevent a higher punishment handed to him if he were found guilty by trial). Lee's case has been compared to the Dreyfus Affair (the conviction of the French Jew Alfred Dreyfus for treason against France on political grounds), and some consider it to be a textbook example of the harm that can be done to an individual when the power of government and the power of media unite against one person."

There is a Simple English Wikipedia for people to write like this. Please be a little more convincing than dismissing "common sense" outright. If they don't get this, then we have a lot more problem on our hands than we think.

The information provided in this article by the surname template is indeed relevant, notable, and important, but it belongs in the article itself, not above it. We reserve that space for disambiguation notices to redirect people away from the article before they start reading it. People don't need to find out about the surname before they have been presented with the full name.--Jiang 04:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP removal[edit]


I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. This is a Secret account 21:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mister Lee is an American[edit]

I removed the inaccurate statement that "Wen Ho Lee" is a Chinese name. He is an American. Yes, I have tried to read through all of the above posts about this editing decision, but I must frankly state that all the time spent in arguing over the matter could have been better spent in beefing up the article. It has been marked as a Stub for quite a while now. Very sincerely yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC).

I might be able to contribute information to this article, since I'm reading My Country vs. Me right now. I am surprised that hardly anything regarding the Wen Ho Lee case is found on this article, along with the Cox Controversy. --Dubtiger (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
the reality is simply too depressing. a racist witch hunt spurred by a cowardly administration and a stupid congress. all this was going on while the @#$@# 9/11 hijackers were living in @#$@#$ san diego, and NSA, and CIA both knew about them, but the message never made it to FBI head quarters until too late. maybe if they had dozens of agents assigned to al-midhar and al-hazmi instead of Dr Lee there would be no 9/11. i have tried to add a little bit of info from Dr lee's book, but it is hard, it gives one the unbearable feeling of watching a trainwreck, when reading the facts of the case. Decora (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Good for you. We await your contribution. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

{ { Chinese American|state=collapsed } }[edit]

What is this? It has been removed, but what is it? Querulously, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It transcludes this into the page: Template:Chinese American. The 'collapsed' tag condenses the template down to a single line, which provides a toggle button to expand. The template should not be used on biographies of individuals, but makes sense for articles about Chinese American culture as a whole. (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

External links that should be used as references[edit]

Removed these from the article as they do not meet WP:EL - they would make good references for supporting this article however I'm sure!

Nikthestoned 06:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Fifty Cent Party At it Again[edit]

It is generally accepted that though due process was not followed in this case that Wen Ho Lee did steal government information and bring it off site.

This article is hugely politically charged and makes no neutral point that perhaps he did something illegal. This is the kind of rubbish that makes Wikipedia unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wen Ho Lee. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 04:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

simulation software for nuclear explosions[edit]

The article links to simulation software for nuclear explosions, as two separate links. I wonder, though, is there anywhere in WP that discusses simulation software for nuclear explosions? (That is, what can be publically stated.) The specific question I am interested in now, is (about) how many lines of Fortran (or other languages) are used? I suppose that there is a lot that can't be said, but that should be fine. Gah4 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)