Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contesting the speedy notice: This page should not be speedily deleted because the item I was paraphrasing came from Citation 1: "a new transatlantic project aimed at countering Russian information warfare". Knowing nothing more, the descrption stems from the web page of the topic, Citation 2. I can certainly expand the meaning of "bipartisan" meaning both Democratic and Republican support,^[1] and "transatlantic", meaning both US and Germany,^[2] at the minimum. I believe that "Russian information warfare", or cyberwarfare is well-documented. The topic's "mission statement" could replace the word "status".

The Marshall Plan is well-known, as is German Marshall Fund--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re CSD A7 The Germans are vitally interested in the topic of Russian interference, as well.^[2]

The opening line, as it stands now, is a violation of NPOV:

"The Alliance for Securing Democracy is a transatlantic project dedicated to countering Russian interference, propaganda, and other efforts to undermine the democratic institutions of Europe and America."

This sentence states ASD's point of view, that Russia is trying to subvert democracy in Europe and the US, in Wikipedia's authoritative voice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read NPOV. The current text is verified by the sources. Take this to NPOVN to put any remaining worries to rest. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read

WP:NPOV. The current text takes an opinion and restates it as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice. In order to retain neutrality, we have to attribute ASD's opinions to the group, instead of taking them for granted. This really is quite simple and straightforward: The ASD states that Russia is trying to undermine European and American democracy, and that it (the ASD) aims to protect democracy. We can state those things with attribution. There's no reason to state them as fact, because we don't know if they're true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

My impression is that the version on the right is more neutral: diff. The version on the left comes across as

WP:ADVOCACY rendered in Wikipedia's voice. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Do we have to endure the recurring typo? At least fix the misspelling of 'insidious' during these edit wars ... --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits were not an improvement; pls see diff. Secondary sources are indeed useful -- they indicate that the mission of the org has been noted by independent sources. Pls also see my comment above on

WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

There are currently "refimprove" and "primary" tags on the page. I added a secondary source to the last sentence that was sourced only to ASD's website, so there aren't any sentences referenced only to ASD any more. Are there any other sentences that need secondary sourcing, or can we remove the "primary" tag? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a website with a verbatim quote of the other source is collinear and adds zilch. And who added the redlink I removed? Seriouly? SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you want. We're describing the mission statement of the ASD, and I cited a RS as a secondary source. What else do you want?

I added the redlink of Jamie Fly because they sound like a fairly important American political figure, and they don't yet have a Wikipedia entry. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to comment here, please respond to the problem I indicated above. You have a "source" who merely quoted verbatim the boiler plate declaration in the primary source. You removed secondary RS that gives an independent assessment of the organization based on the pertinent information available to it. Please review policy concerning OR and redlink guidelines. Please undo your edit. SPECIFICO talk 13:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more precise if you want to address what you see as sourcing problems. When you say, "You removed secondary RS that gives an independent assessment of the organization based on the pertinent information available to it," I don't know what source you're talking about. I'm removing the "primary" tag from the page, since nothing is exclusively sourced to primary sources any more. If you think there are still problems with primary sourcing, then please post an exact description of what the problems are, describing exactly which sentence is not properly sourced. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for overambitious editing by a newcomer. The Intercept article in the Advisory Council section seems heavily editorialized, its inclusion on the ASD page fails to note other ideological influences than the neoconservative, including significant representation (5 of 13) by Obama-era appointments. If this section is to mention partisanship it should include a more complete discussion; agreed that more secondary sourcing is necessary. MuiZdyes (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept's article actually notes the relationship between the Democratic party and neoconservatives inside the ASD. In fact, that looks to me to be the central point of The Intercept's article. This might not be paraphrased very well here, which is something we could work on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that source is just the author's (dubious) opinion. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion is notable enough to include. It appears in a publication of some weight and is written by a well-known American commentator on national security affairs. The opinion is attributed, so I think it's clear we're relating an opinion. If it sounds like the statement is in Wikipedia's voice, we can address that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Blind reverts are not helpful. Once your preferred text has been reverted, reinstatement requires consensus if that were possible. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't make specific suggestions, it's hard to proceed. I don't know what, exactly you object to. I asked, above, what your specific issues were with primary sourcing. You still haven't responded there. Just telling me you object in a general way isn't helpful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence, "The alliance is chaired and run primarily by former senior United States intelligence and State Department officials" is currently inaccurate and unsupported by its sourcing. The Washington Post article cited describes operation by 'national security figures', and former national security advisers (a broader category) make up a larger portion of leadership than intelligence officials (specific and only clearly represented by one person) . I suggest changing the wording to 'former senior United States national security officials,' but am open to discussing the issue before making further changes. MuiZdyes (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording is accurate, but it could be reworded to something like, "senior United States national security officials, including US intelligence and State Department figures." -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MuiZydes: Correct. We need to stick with only what WaPo says, not adding b's like senior officials etc. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times (28 September 2017) pp.A1,A16 is reporting that the AfSD is tracking the activities of 600 disruptive twitter bot accounts, and has identified a general strategy which the disruptions are taking. Is this a worthwhile section of the article? Such a section might be called Findings.

The disruptions basically attack the American cybersphere, to coin a phrase. It's not election interference per se, and is an ongoing activity of the bots, which perform "large-scale automated messaging" (The New York Times (28 September 2017) p.A1). As an example, secession movements in Texas and California have been tracked to the bots. These actions get identified, they shut down, and pop-up elsewhere. When I was going to school, the topic being disrupted would have been called Civics or Citizenship, and the teachers would give grades on our individual performance. Nascent citizens go to classes on this general kind of civic knowledge before their swearing-of-allegiance.

The strategy appears to be to attack quotidian aspects of American culture, for apparently no reason, except that in sum, they lead to cognitive overload. AfSD's Laura Rosenberger characterizes these bots' intent as to "create societal division" (The New York Times (28 September 2017) p.A16). Americans appear to be blind to the process, except for the initiatives of AfSD and perhaps other like-minded NGOs. It's as if there were no bots analogous to Wikipedia which serve to root out vandalism, etc. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source, which is already in use here, goes into detail about the ASD's social media tracking projects. Specifically, it goes into the three categories: accounts related to or suspected of being related to the Russian government and media (e.g., RT), "trolls" that retweet these messages, and finally, accounts which simply tweet messages that the ASD considers pro-Russian or anti-American. A quote that the Times of Israel highlights is: "By no means are we saying that the 500 accounts are run by a Russian operative." These methodological issues are very poorly covered here at the moment, but I'm not sure how to cover them without inflating the article significantly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The gratuitous insinuation of political disparagement culled from a scathing screed by pundit Glen Greenwald is UNDUE in this article -- the topic of which is the organization and its activities. Moreover the smears of various Advisors to ASD are irrelevant, SYNTH, ad hominem denigration of the organization.

This content has been challenged by reversion and was recently reinserted in the article without consensus. It should be removed and if anyone feels strongly about it, this talk page is the place to pursue your views. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us how you really feel. "Gratuitous insinuation of political disparagement culled from a scathing screed by pundit Glen Greenwald" [sic] is quite a mouthful! But seriously, we have two sentences from Greenwald's article (not screed) about the ASD. It's one of the more lengthy and in-depth pieces on the ASD that I've come across - there isn't a whole lot of coverage of them as a group. It's certainly worth the two short sentences it gets here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your words sum up everything wrong with this POV nonsense. It's UNDUE. It's SYNTH. "one of the ... that I've come across" is not our standard here. That's a page from your diary, but on WP we work from the weight of mainstream accounts and we accurately reflect what they say. Cherrypicking a self-published web pundit and then misrepresenting him is not OK, even if you personally choose not to "come across" the voluminous mainstream reporting on this ASD outfit. And of course the artfully excerpted smear you crafted serves to misrepresent the GG's statement while distorting WP's article. It insinuates an irrelevant smear (or what some readers may believe is a smear. Neocon. Bad. What's a neocon? Bad.) into an article that is dedicated to the topic of this organization and its activities. Don't throw up these straw men -- "surely worth two sentences" -- when the sentences violate site policy. SPECIFICO talk 13:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Greenwald's article is not UNDUE, POV or SYNTH. It's not self-published (it's published in The Intercept), and it's not misrepresented (his article is largely about the ASD's relationship to neoconservatism). You're throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks. Citing random Wikipedia acronyms ("SYNTH!") out of context isn't an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Greenwald sentence as per SPECIFICO's advice and until a consensus on its wording can be arrived at. Also, Thucydides411, your justification for reverting the material that I had put in that insinuated the irrelevancy ("synthesis," "other views") of providing the relevant contextual information about his views on the events which directly catalyzed the creation of this organization is just laughable. It's obvious with your edits that you have an axe to grind when it comes to this article (and articles like this) but do at the very least try to make the effort to not edit the article as if your were editing it in your sandbox.Wingwraith (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the description you added of Greenwald is

synthesis

is that it is your own compilation of other views that Greenwald has. Your addition drew a connection between Greenwald's article on the ASD and his views on a variety of other topics, based on a number of sources that don't mention the ASD at all. In other words, you synthesized a number of sources in order to make an original point.

Greenwald's article is relevant here, because it's directly about the ASD, and goes in depth into the politics surrounding it. As far as I'm aware, there have only been a few articles published that have discussed the ASD in such depth. SPECIFICO clearly doesn't like Glenn Greenwald and views anything he writes as a "screed," but other than that personal dislike, SPECIFICO hasn't given a reasonable argument for excluding this material. Listing one's favorite acronyms (POV, SYNTH, UNDUE) without any explanation of why those acronyms are relevant isn't an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't synthesis because as I said the material that I included are his views on the events that directly led to the creation of this organization so the "original point" point that you are raising is a non-starter. I don't have a problem with including his article in this article but let's not pretend that his views about ASD come from nowhere Wingwraith (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is the definition of

synthesis

: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. The sources you cited don't say that Greenwald published his article on the ASD because of the other views you listed. You're bringing several sources together to make a point that none of them individually makes - the four sources you cited don't even mention the ASD.

We don't actually need to say much about The Intercept or Glenn Greenwald. We should attribute his views to him, because that's what

neutrality requires, but something as simple as this would do: "Writing in The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald comments that ..." -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The point I'm making is something which Greenwald himself has admitted to which is that is not a neutral observer of what ASD does because he is a self-described skeptic of the investigations into the events that led to the creation of ASD. So where is the

WP:SYNTH in that? Wingwraith (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm fine with introducing the material with something like "progressive political journalist Glenn Greenwald writes that ..." However, listing a string of political positions he holds is too much. What I think is

WP:SYNTH is citing a number of different articles which are unrelated to the ASD in order to establish Greenwald's background, and then implying that those other positions have to do with his article on the ASD. But as I said, I would view it as an acceptable compromise to frame Greenwald's observations about the political background of the ASD with some short description (like "progressive political journalist") of Greenwald. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

We don't "compromise" to violate WP site policy. Greenwald's ad hominem remarks about a couple of the personnel are not part of the mainstream description of ASD or its activities. They are UNDUE, SYNTH, POV and a BLP-smeary labeling of expert professionals by a marginal commentator in the organ he founded and controls. Find a mainstream RS that cites GG's opinion about ASD and there might be a case for including that in the article. Otherwise, this stuff needs to get out. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I thought I told you not to cite dozens of acronyms out of context. Stringing together "UNDUE," "SYNTH," "POV" and "BLP" with no explanation does not an argument make. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. We don't put fringe POV ad hominem denigration in an article that is about an organization and its activities. You've had your say. Nobody agrees with you. 3 editors have disagreed, while you continue to edit war this SYNTHY UNDUE nonsense into the article. Put it in the Greenwald article, it's a good example of his virulent anti-"neocon" labeling of people, places, and things. And don't misrepresent "the definition of SYNTH". If you really don't understand the issues here, review the policy pages on NPOV and NOR. And don't personalize your talk page comments. If you have anything worthwhile to offer, it can be stated in terms of policy, sources, and article content. The Intercept is Greenwald's organ. You will not find this kind of screed (yes) published by an independent organ. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read through your post, but unfortunately, I couldn't find a single thought-out point. Let me see if I can pick through the various pieces of spaghetti you just threw at the wall:

• You call inclusion of Greenwald's article "SYNTHY." How is does it fall under
  WP:SYNTH
  ? I see absolutely no connection, and you don't provide one. As usual, you just declare that it is SYNTH.
• And don't misrepresent "the definition of SYNTH." I quoted directly from
  WP:SYNTH
  , but you don't give the slightest indication of how I misrepresented it.
• If you really don't understand the issues here, review the policy pages on NPOV and NOR. You haven't explained how you think I'm misunderstanding policies. You're just asserting that I've violated a bunch of acronyms you like to repeat, without giving any explanation of how you think those policies are violated here.
• The Intercept is Greenwald's organ. You're trying to stretch
  reliable sources noticeboard
  .
• We don't put fringe POV ad hominem denigration in an article [...] This is just your way of complaining that you don't like the material.

We should have a rule moving forward: if you're going to post acronyms, you have to explain why they're relevant and how they apply here. You can't just throw out five acronyms in every post with no explanation. That's not an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO keeps going on about "UNDUE denigration" of the ASD and William Kristol. Kristol is known primarily as a neoconservative political commentator. He describes himself as "neoconservative," and that's how an endless number of reliable sources describe him. He's not primarily known as a Republican. As for "UNDUE," I'm going to remind SPECIFICO of the rule above: don't cite policy acronyms unless you actually explain how they're relevant. It's sort of ridiculous to try to talk with someone who responds to actual arguments with "UNDUE, SYNTHy, derogatory, POV, BLP!" -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion above, by user:Thucydides411, user:Wingwraith, and user:SPECIFICO, I have restored the paragraph.

(1) This article violates

WP:NPOV

, I don't think he has a right to delete all criticism.

(2) The fact that SPECIFICO thinks Greenwald's charges are "smears," ad hominem, denigration, biased or unfavorable is irrelevant under Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

WP:BALANCE

.

(3) I disagree with SPECIFICO's claim that Greenwald's comment is

WP:SYNTH

, and I can't identify a logical argument there. Greenwald is directly commenting on the Alliance. Nobody is synthesizing two sources.

(4) Greenwald is a recognized expert on foreign affairs, with many books and periodical publications. Even if The Intercept was his personal blog, it would still be a

WP:BLOGS

: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

(5) There is no

WP:BLP

issue here. The Alliance for Securing Democracy is not a living person.

(6) There seems to be a consensus on the Talk page for including the paragraph. A majority of editors favor it, but consensus isn't a vote. Consensus is raising objections to content and answering those objections with reasons based on WP policies and guidelines. I believe that Thucydides411 and Wingwraith have given good reasons for keeping it in. SPECIFICO has given reasons for deleting it, but I don't think they hold up. Therefore we have consensus for keeping it in. Therefore, the burden of proof is now on SPECIFICO if he wants to delete it, and he hasn't met that burden. Therefore, I'm restoring it. --Nbauman (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from Columbia Journalism Review that cites Greenwald to support its own view. So it's definitely not a fringe view. You can't get much more authoritative than CJR:

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/russian-trolls.php

The media today: Are Russian trolls behind everything?

By Mathew Ingram

February 21, 2018

"According to The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald, the Alliance and the Fund are backed by notorious right-wing warmongers such as Bill Kristol and Mike Chertoff, and therefore their conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt."

--Nbauman (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that sounds neutral. "Warmongers".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be neutral: see

WP:BIASED. You really should know this by know, considering you've been on Wikipedia since 2005. ^Falling_Gravity 06:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly, Greenwald himself overall is UNDUE here, but pinning (undeserved) labels on him is both POV and BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has any editor researched Homeland preparedness news? I found it when searching for the Miniature Hit-to-Kill missile. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the GMF and ASD uniquely privileged by some deity to tell us what the "truth" is about any issue in International Politics? Clearly, the answer is no. The controversies surrounding ASD and the GMF belong in a criticism section on the article itself, and not in fights in the talk page. The absence of such a section renders the article hagiographic and too deferential to an outfit that has not been free of distortion, bias and frankly in some case contested and discredited truth claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.135 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism sections" are not good practice on Wikipedia. If there have been noteworthy comments on ASD's work by notable individuals, published by independent publications, you may present suggestions here on the talk page. The Intercept has been rejected because the comments there are nothing more substantial than ad hominem denigration of individuals associated with ASD and are from a fringe source in his own publication. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That characterization of The Intercept is completely wrong. The Intercept is a reliable source for news, and there are a number of particularly well-known commentators who write opinion pieces there. It's not self-published, and it's not fringe. Greenwald has written very critically about the ASD and prominent people involved in it. Calling that criticism "denigration" does not mean it's not appropriate for this Wikipedia article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is only your personal POV and does not reflect mainstream evaluation of the Intercept or WP policy-based RS standards. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for the above. Point to a thread on

WP:RSN and argue that case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is not about "bush's warrantless etc." The onus is on you. Go to RSN if you wish. It's self-sourced ad hominem by Greenwald who is fringe on a whole range of subjects that appear to irk him. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed this article was about Bush's warrantless wiretapping. You claimed that The Intercept is not a reliable source, and I pointed out a number of reasons why it is one, including the strength of its writing and editorial staff, and its demonstrated policy of correcting mistakes. The onus is not on me to ask

WP:RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Publications are not "RS" -- citations are RS for article content. Please read

WP:V, including [WP:ONUS]] before commenting further. ~~`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it's pretty clear what I meant about the Intercept being a reliable source - you're just quibbling with my not being as detailed as you would like (obviously, "it's an RS source" has the usual caveats). If you want to rule out

WP:RSN and make the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It is sadly obvious to me Thucydides that talking to you is pointless. I am not particularly invested in Greenwald,but I find your attempts to curtail any and all criticism of the GMF, Hamilton 68, and ASD Orwellian. There needs to be a section that contains the critical perspective. Your assertions otherwise are not convincing, especially in the light of the heated discussiobn you had with SPECIFICO. IF you are an affiliate of the GMF, you need to be out of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.30 (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC) I got the names mixed up apologies to both.[reply]

This article from CJR [1] makes or relates several criticisms of ASD/Hamilton68 which I don't see reflected in the article:

• The Russia-focused news site Meduza notes Hamilton68 won’t disclose which accounts it follows
• These reports were also based in part on conclusions by Hamilton68, which Newsweek said called the anti-Franken campaign “officially a Russian intelligence operation” (Hamilton68 later said that it did no such thing) ... Newsweek and Raw Story both later unpublished their stories.

CJR is a generally reliable source. Are there reasons we should not expand the use of this article? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to expand on Greenwald's Intercept article.[2] Currently it is used for the text "Glenn Greenwald reported that advisory council member William Kristol and staffer Jamie Fly have previously cooperated on neoconservative causes" which is factual and neutral but not a comprehensive representation of his argument. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the hisory of the article and talk pages before coming here with an itchy trigger finger. Greenwald is basically a fringe self-published writer who's been pretty much ignored for years by the world at large. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to focus your comments on content. Although not perfect CJR does not typically publicize the concerns of "fringe self-published writer[s]" uncritically, so your position on Greenwald is at odds with theirs which I'm inclined to favor. Do you have any objections to expanding our use of the CJR source? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the CJR secondary source is not the ad hominem smears. Who knows, maybe you'll put in a bit of effort and come up with valid article content from that secondary source? SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opening post in this section (see above) I identified two comments from the CJR piece I would like to include. Do you consider either an "ad hominem smear"? If not I will proceed with paraphrasing. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia policy against including criticisms of the leadership of an organization? I've never heard of "ad hominem smear" being used as a reason for excluding criticism of an organization on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: I don't think it is undue to simply mention that Estonia's ex-president is a member of the advisory council. It simply shows the organization has international outreach. It would be undue if I would have went into great details about Ilves's participation but that is not the case.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "undue detail" argument doesn't make any sense to me. The article is a border-line

stub, with under 3,000 characters of written prose. If anything, there's not enough detail in this article. ^Falling_Gravity 16:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree. Ideally we would list the entire advisory council. I noticed the source for Ilves was an opinion piece so I added their press release as a reference. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "Reception" section, based on the sources that FallingGravity listed in the RfC above. One of the outcomes of the RfC was that if Greenwald is to be cited, then alternate viewpoints (particularly that of Glasser in Politico) should be cited. Accordingly, I included three opinions: those of Greenwald, Glasser and Beinart. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do an end run around the RfC close. There's no consensus to add GG. The ONUS is on you. As to the others, you should present your case here and perhaps you can gain consensus for reinserting them. I have challenged your edit per DS on American Politics. Use talk. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and karate wrote when closing the RfC: "There is no clear consensus one way or the other as to whether to include the criticism from Glenn Greenwald within this article. There is, however, a fairly broad agreement from both sides of the argument that if Greenwald's criticism is to be included, it must be written carefully and in a moderate tone, in line with the available sources, and balanced with opposing views." I think the inserted section was well balanced and well sourced, perhaps even too well-sourced, though that can easily be remedied by focusing on the most high quality sources, like maybe WaPo or CJR. ^Falling_Gravity 21:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there was no consensus to include, so the ONUS is on the editor who wishes to garner consensus. In fact what's happened is that after a year (or more?) if the best Thuc can do to denigrate ASD is trot out the same stale dated snippet, that just about seals the case that not only is that GG thing UNDUE, but maybe ASD itself is going nowhere. We need recent discussion of the organization and its work. Maybe it will not turn out to be

WP:NOTABLE. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The closing did not preclude the inclusion of Greenwald's criticism of ASD, and laid out conditions that would have to be met for it to be included. I wrote a section that I think met those conditions - it was worded neutrally, and included different opinions, including the Politico article (which the closer referenced).

"the best Thuc can do to denigrate ASD is trot out the same stale dated snippet: There's no reason to personalize this content dispute, nor to question my good faith. I made a good-faith attempt to present a range of views. And what makes Greenwald's view "stale"? It was written a year ago, and has been referenced in numerous other publications over the following months. Is there some date cutoff, at which point an article becomes "stale"?

"that just about seals the case that not only is that GG thing UNDUE": I cited five different articles, written over the course of several months, which all referenced Greenwald's original article. Has any other article on the ASD been cited that much? Based on the number of citations, Greenwald's article might be the most DUE work written about ASD. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply incorrect, the ONUS for inclusion is on you and you failed to convince the community. No consensus means it does not go in the article. Continue your quest on talk but don't bring in false and irrelevant arguments that fail to address the central point, to wit, it's a bad source, off topic and undue. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"don't bring in false and irrelevant arguments that fail to address the central point, to wit, it's a bad source, off topic and undue": I addressed your contention that the Greenwald source is UNDUE, by citing numerous other articles in major publications that reference Greenwald's article. You keep asserting, with no supporting argument, that Greenwald's article is UNDUE, despite all the evidence to the contrary. "It's a bad source" is a vague assertion, not a policy argument, so there's no need to respond to it. Finally, how is Greenwald's article "off topic"? It's about the ASD.

"No consensus means it does not go in the article." The closer did not say that Greenwald's article should be excluded, and in fact discussed the possibility of including it. The closer laid out some suggestions for how it should be treated if included, and I followed those suggestions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dogfarts, this is still going on? Thucydides411, you really need to

WP:DROPTHESTICK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry, VM, that's not a helpful contribution, because it doesn't address any of the issues involved. I added a section to the article that was in line with the recommendations from the RfC, which SPECIFICO has removed. The rationale they've given is clearly incorrect - they claimed that Greenwald's article is UNDUE (the numerous citations to Greenwald's article prove that assertion incorrect) and that it's off-topic (which is just plain wrong - Greenwald's article is about the ASD). Note that I also included the opinions of Glasser and Beinart, and SPECIFICO has removed those as well, without any rationale whatsoever. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GG gets "citations" overwhelmingly by mainstream writers to dispute his credibility and judgment. And as has been established previously here, passing mentions don't establish due weight. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Of the five citations listed above by FallingGravity, one is neutral (CJR), two are positive (the Washington Post and Salon), one is mixed (The Atlantic) and one is negative (Politico). "And as has been established previously here, passing mentions don't establish due weight." Those articles don't just mention Greenwald's article in passing - they respond to his article at length.

So far in this discussion, there hasn't been a single valid, true objection offered to citing Glenn Greenwald, Susan Glasser and Peter Beinart. The claim that Greenwald's article is UNDUE is belied by the fact that it's been discussed at length in several articles in major publications. The claim that all the articles that cite Greenwald only do so to dispute his credibility and judgment can be easily seen to be false by just reading the articles, several of which agree with Greewald's point. The claim that Greenwald's article is off-topic is simply false - his article is specifically about the ASD. The appeal to

WP:DROPTHESTICK doesn't actually address any of these points - it's just an appeal to accept the unexplained deletion of valid material. No argument whatsoever has been offered for removing Glasser and Beinart's views - those just seem to be collateral damage in the attempt to remove Greenwald's views. Is there any actual policy reason for excluding the views of Greenwald, Glasser and Beinart? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The only policy "reason" I'm seeing is

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've reinstated the well-referenced section. ^Falling_Gravity 22:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Rather, what you're seeing is exhaustion with obscurantist

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the part of Thucidydes, which is SOP for him on pretty much any article he gets involved in. How many times do things have to be repeated? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Please review the talk archive and the RfC and

WP:NPOV. It's pretty clear what you'll see if you look. If you want to press this, perhaps you could propose specific article text -- better text than Thuc's -- try a new RfC. Maybe you will gain consensus. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If we knew what it was that you objected to, we could propose an amended text. But you haven't given a single valid reason for removing the text. Every reason you've given is obviously spurious, and you haven't bothered to actually explain or support any of your objections. You've just been making patently untrue assertions (e.g., Greenwald's article is supposedly off-topic, or that it's only cited by mainstream publications to attack Greenwald - both untrue assertions). Give some actual feedback, and then we can amend the text. Don't just revert and stonewall. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear what the admin who closed the original RfC, Fish and karate, has to say about it. ^Falling_Gravity 00:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(summoned by ping) There was no consensus to include the text; but there was similarly no consensus not to include it. I closed the RFC based on what was presented within the RFC. @Thucydides411: - can I suggest you please provide a suggested text here on the talk page. @SPECIFICO: - while I'm sure you may feel like doing so is repeating yourself, I think it would then be really helpful if you could clearly explain what issues you perceive within that text, and work with Thucydides411 on arriving at a version amenable to both of you. It's not particularly helpful saying the onus is on the other party to come up with a suitable phrasing, and then dismissing their efforts without suggesting any alternative. Perhaps you could also come up with a phrasing that you would find acceptable and then all here can see how far apart the two versions are? Fish+Karate 09:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Writing in The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald criticized the group, arguing that it represented a political alliance between neoconservatives and hawkish Democrats.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} Susan Glasser responded, in an article in Politico, that the work of the ASD is important bipartisan effort to uncover Russian influence in American politics.^[4] In an article in The Atlantic, Peter Beinart argued that Greewald's fear that the work of the ASD would be used to depict political progressives as unpatriotic is founded, but that it is nevertheless important to uncover Russian involvement in American politics.^[5]

-Thucydides411 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that has addressed all the defects that have been pointed out to you over and over, please indicate how. To me it looks no good for the same old reasons. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the RfC, one of the major reasons for "oppose" votes was that a range of opinions should be presented. That's why I included three different opinions, ranging from Greenwald's critical opinion of the ASD to Glasser's positive opinion of them, with Beinart's mixed opinion somewhere in-between the other two. Another criticism focused on Greenwald himself, and that he's supposedly not taken seriously. The abundance of other articles that discuss Greenwald's views on the ASD speaks pretty powerfully against the assertion that nobody's paying attention to his article.

If you have a specific criticism of my draft, please state it. A vague reference to "all the defects" help. How am I supposed to improve the draft if I don't know what, precisely, you object to in it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same garbage that was just rejected. Please drop the stick. None of this is noteworthy and none of it is about ASD. Just tired ad hominem from GG and then a few folks reminding us not to pay any attention to GG. Goose-egg. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Fish and Karate: Is SPECIFICO's response above what you had in mind when you asked them to "clearly explain what issues you perceive within that text, and work with Thucydides411 on arriving at a version amenable to both of you"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

To make things easier, I've italicized the publication titles in this proposal. I'd suggest using each reference only once, instead of repeating the citations [4][5], to avoid

WP:NPOV. ^Falling_Gravity 03:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Those suggestions look good to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion of a tweaked version per
  WP:DUE. ^Falling_Gravity 05:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support Thucydides411's proposed text, which is well-sourced, neutral and balanced. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject As if it were not clear, this is exactly what's been rejected for valid reasons explained over and over by many editors during Thuc's long and senseless edit war. I would hope that THUC, after having already been TBANned once from Russia-related articles, would make more constructive and collaborative edits on related articles. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: The closing admin asked both you and Thucydides to provide a baseline version that you would see as acceptable, so that a meaningful discussion can be carried out to find consensus wording. If you do value "constructive and collaborative edits", perhaps that would be the path to follow, instead of brandishing past TBANs, calling proposed text "garbage" and condemning a "senseless edit war" that I'm not seeing. — JFG ^talk 17:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here's the tweaked I've been working on:

Writing in The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald criticized the group, arguing that it represented a political alliance between neoconservatives and hawkish Democrats.^[1][2][3][4] In an article in The Atlantic, Peter Beinart argued that while Greenwald's fear of hawkish foreign policy was founded, it was nevertheless important to understand Russia's involvement in American politics.^[5] In a Politico article, Susan Glasser praised the group for its bipartisan approach to tracking Russian propaganda.^[6]

I welcome any suggested improvements. ^Falling_Gravity 08:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That has the same problem as every previous suggestion for GG's smear. It is elevating a knee-jerk ad hominem attack on various individuals -- even as it cites RS rejecting GG and his view. This is not acceptable. Let's look for real content about this organization's goals, operations, and activities. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Wikipedia policy saying we should censor criticism because you believe it's a "knee-jerk ad hominem attack", especially if that criticism is

cited in multiple RS. Do you have any valid policy-based improvements or objections, or are you just going to continue your vendetta against GG? ^Falling_Gravity 17:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That's ridiculous. The topic of this article is the organization. Disparagement of some individuals with no reference or information relevant to the activities of the organization -- only fear, expectation, and speculation of a fringey guy who years ago had his 15 minutes of fame and now basically self-publishes, is COATRACK and not about the topic of the article. And your other sources are just saying the same thing, that GG's disparagement is empty and useless. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty ridiculous that I expected a valid policy-based improvement or objection from you. Instead I got the usual "criticism of ASD's leadership is not really criticism of ASD" argument. ^Falling_Gravity 18:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fringey. What's the point of posting some sour grapes milennium animus and then topping it off with RS that say it's meaningless? A*0=0 SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're still waiting for your proposed wording. If all you care to say is "I consider Greenwald fringe, therefore we should not use anything he ever writes", then we've heard you and you should abstain from further bludgeoning. — JFG ^talk 01:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity: I think your version is an improvement. I support its inclusion in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support FallingGravity's version: 2nd choice Thucydides' version. This sliver of criticism greatly improves the article and the proposed addition is written neutrally. The RFC result was no consensus. That was then. By my assessment we now have a consensus. We should make the edit without delay. – Lionel^(talk) 02:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

((od))The consensus of a dozen-plus editors in a long RfC is not reversed because a couple of the dissenters show up while the others either don't know it's being pushed again or preseume that everyone will recognize that in the absence of a stated reversal, we still have those editors views on the record. If you want to add "reception" the most constructive path would be to find RS discussion of the program and activities of the organization and RS mainstream comment on those two points. Finding one fringe ad hominem and then two dismissals of his empty attack fails NPOV and WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Fish and Karate proposed that you work with me and other editors here to come up with a consensus text, but instead of making your own proposal or offering substantive suggestions for how my proposed text could be altered, you've simply repeated over and over again that you consider Glenn Greenwald "fringe," and you've ignored or mischaracterized all the other sources that discuss his article. I think it's clear at this point that you're not going to give any constructive feedback, and that the balance of editors here support FallingGravity's revision, so I think it can go in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You've ignored my previous post. 3 of you favor this and 14 or so from the RfC oppose it. If you put it in without pinging each of them and/or mounting a new RfC, that will be disruptive -- and coming from an editor such as yourself with multiple DS sanctions including a Russia TBAN, I don't think that is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Please do not threaten your fellow editors. @Fish and karate: Given the lack of any constructive input by SPECIFICO, would you agree that the text proposed by Thucydides411, as amended by FallingGravity, can be inserted, and that it would match the spirit and the letter of your RfC close? — JFG ^talk 18:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support FallingGravity's amended text proposal, or some kind of dispute resolution if we were given any tangible objection to work with. -Darouet (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(pinged) I did say to Specifico that "It's not particularly helpful saying the onus is on the other party to come up with a suitable phrasing, and then dismissing their efforts without suggesting any alternative." This seems to continue to be the case, and so in the absence of any constructive feedback, and in the absence of an alternative proposal, I think it's reasonable to insert FallingGravity's proposed phrasing. I do not think that doing so without a further RFC could reasonably be construed as disruptive, and the bringing up of past sanctions is unnecessary. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Fish+Karate 10:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done,[6] thanks. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate:. As you know, I am one of many editors who reject the mention of Greenwald's ad hominem smear of ASD staff because Greenwald's statement is UNDUE, he is not a respected commentator (despite years ago having had one notable success), the text fails Verification, and other policy-based arguments. Because the content is unsuitable, it's not making sense to me that you would say that a lack of "suitable phrasing" from me (or others who oppose this content in any form, per the RfC) is, as you put it "lack of constructive feedback." No "proposal" of article text can cure content that is undue or off-topic. Editors at the RfC opposed inclusion of this content in any form. This is not just my personal opinion. Meanwhile, I've seen that your comment here has been taken by one editor as permission to insert this bit into the article. And as I have already mentioned, the minority of editors who are pushing this content could have made a constructive contribution by pinging all the editors from the RfC to see whether their text was acceptable. At this point, somebody needs to remove the text that's just been inserted and either the crux of its flaws needs to be addressed or another RfC on that specific text will again be needed to stop the GG advocates' edit-warring, which has gone on for a long time, and not just at this article, BTW. SPECIFICO talk

None of the supposed policy problems you claim exist actually exist in the text:

• "the text fails Verification": What, precisely, fails verification? Everything in FallingGravity's draft is sourced. Failing verification would mean either that something isn't sourced, or that the source doesn't say what the text claims it says. Neither of those conditions is present.
• "Greenwald's statement is UNDUE": The fact that the Columbia Journalism Review, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Politico and Salon all published articles discussing Greenwald's piece strongly suggests otherwise. You've claimed several times that these sources simply dismiss Greenwald's argument, but that isn't true. A number of the articles agree with his point or neutrally describe it.
• "he is not a respected commentator": That's just your personal opinion. His reporting for the Guardian won a Pulitzer prize in 2014, which strongly suggests that he's more respected than you're making him out to be.

Repeating these erroneous claims borders on

tendentious editing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

A dozen editors showed up for the RfC and subsequent discussion. Your claims have been refuted several times over by various editors. Nobody's going to repeat the discussion for you. Read it if you care. There was no consensus to include the UNDUE GG stuff in any form and it will be reverted. Per the RfC close, editors may continue substantive discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this thread again, and notice that you are the only one fighting the "all these reactions are undue" battle. Dropping the

WP:STICK would be advisable. — JFG ^talk 23:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Fish and karate: For the avoidance of doubt, I am concluding from your silence that you decline to review or clarify the issues I raised above in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: I decline to get dragged into this. I closed an RFC as a neutral, uninvolved party, have given a view one further time when asked politely, and that's where I would like my involvement to end. Fish+Karate 08:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I will pursue other remedies. Thanks for the update. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the tweaked text as it incorporates
  WP:SYNTH and is worded to give undue importance to Greenwald's opinion (hawkish hawkish hawkish). I have tweaked the text in the article to address these concerns. I have not yet reviewed the RfC close, but I have read the above comments.- MrX 🖋 14:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@MrX: I've added "establishment" to match GG's description of Democrats in ASD. It seems we inadvertently pulled "hawkish" from the WaPo title. ^Falling_Gravity 15:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK FallingGravity, I can live with that. - MrX 🖋 15:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should Artikel 38 have the description "named for Artikel 38 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany" ?

Note, see redirect (to here from

I think "named for Article 38 ...," with the English "Article," is better. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The website is called "Artikel 38". It is a German word yes, but no need to translate and add disruptive confusion for the Reader. It is about German protection, relating to German law.

X1\ (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The current "Reception" section seems to focus on the political affiliations of the organization's backers. This seems to omit the main criticism of the site, which has focused on its unclear methodology, lack of verifiable sources, and role in promoting sensationalized news headlines about alleged Russian propaganda efforts. I added another paragraph hopefully addressing this to some extent. Augurar (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make this more neutral, though usually that means somebody will go in and reverts everything. ^Falling_Gravity 07:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix some problems with recent additions, but they have mostly been reverted. I suppose I have to explain these problems here.

• The dashboard has been compared to PropOrNot, an anonymously-published website that attracted controversy for its unverified allegations that independent news sites were spreading Russian propaganda. For one thing, this uses the passive voice and doesn't explain who compared it to PropOrNot. Also, the Meduza reference talks more about how the projects differ than how they're similar, in that "Hamilton 68’s propaganda list is a secret" and "The German Marshall Fund is no ragtag bunch".
• The Hamilton 68 dashboard has been criticized for its "secret methodology" and refusal to disclose the Twitter accounts it tracks. Here "secret methodology" is redundant with "refusal to disclose the Twitter accounts it tracks". I'm not sure whether the Matt Taibbi opinion piece should be included, but it's been met with some resistance in the past.
• James Carden is not a notable commentator, and I haven't seen any indication this opinion piece is a significant. Perhaps if other articles could be found expressing similar sentiments, then it could be
  WP:DUE
  for inclusion.

I find it interesting that both pro- and anti-ASD editors have accused me of being POV. I assure you, my goal is to maintain NPOV, which in the end tends to upset both sides, who want to censor all criticism or push their own POVs into the article. ^Falling_Gravity 19:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not recalling anyone criticizing your edits here. I think all the recently added "reception" stuff needs to come out. Some of it we've proved has no consensus at the RfC and, as you say, other parts lack verification, misrepresent the sources, or quote non-expert POV pundits whose opinions are not significant or well-focused on ASD and its operations. I think you make a good point -- the fact that POV opponents of ASD can only find ad hominem or vague disparagement for their considered methodology -- indicates the emptiness of their concerns. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity: I've altered the description of Meduza's article about Hamilton 68 to more accurately convey their point: the organizers are more reliable than those of PropOrNot, but that the methodology for determining who is an "amplifier" is troubling (because secret). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks a lot better. I've tried consolidating all that stuff and moving it to the "Reception" section. ^Falling_Gravity 23:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why is "meduza" even in here and why do we care? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: it's an oppositional news source founded by Galina Timchenko and other journalists from Lenta.ru, who had run afoul of the Russian government. It's cited by high-quality news sources like The New Yorker [7] and its commentary is noted in articles in the Columbia Journalism Review and Newsweek that reference / describe ASD ([8],[9]). What do you think? -Darouet (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again pinging Volunteer Marek for their input, and MrX as well, being someone who might agree with Marek and offer some helpful comment. Both: my view is that Meduza is a notable source, and that their commentary on this issue is also notable, since it's referenced by CJR and Newsweek. @Thucydides411, FallingGravity, and JFG: I would presume but don't want to take for granted that you believe Meduza's comment deserves mention. Also Fish and karate it'd be great to have your independent opinion, but if you don't want to be drawn in here either, I respect that and apologize for pinging you. -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(

pinged) The Meduza source looks legit as a journalistic outfit with editorial oversight, per our definition of RS. No opinion on the quality or bias of their contents, other than it looks terse and factual at first glance. — JFG ^talk 14:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

RT has "editorial oversight". Is that RS as well? SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are concerns about Meduza (or RT, though I'm not really sure why that's relevant here), then it's probably best to take it to

WP:RSN. ^Falling_Gravity 15:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Nobody but SPECIFICO is discussing RT here. — JFG ^talk 15:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You raised "editorial oversight" -- care to respond to the substance here? SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The substance here is unrelated to RT; please do not stray off-topic, and tell us your thoughts on Meduza. — JFG ^talk 16:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should avoid minor news sources and blogs in favor of mainstream sources. I assume that Meduza is along the lines of Huffington Post or Vox, so it may be usable as a supplementary source, but not as an only source for any particular material. My rule of thumb for including opinion content is that the primary source of the opinion should be noted by at least 2-3 other reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 16:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: but isn't that exactly the situation here? We have the Columbia Journalism Review and Newsweek referencing Meduza's position on the ASD ([10],[11]). Based on your rule of thumb, wouldn't this mean we should include their position? -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Can someone link to the Meduza article so we're not flying blind? Are we taking about an opinion expressed by Meduza, or reporting of facts? CJR and Newsweek are discussing two different things, which is obviously not what I mean by "the primary source of the opinion should be noted by at least 2-3 other reliable sources." - MrX 🖋 17:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also,

Kevin Rothrock's flippant comment is not usable as a serious criticism, and I would be surprised if it were found in any other reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 17:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the Meduza article: [12]. It's discussed and linked to by the CJR article: [13]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is what CJR has to say about the Meduza article:

Others have also raised concerns: The Russia-focused news site Meduza notes Hamilton68 won’t disclose which accounts it follows, and in some cases, they appear to just be accounts set up by actual Russian entities such as the broadcaster Russia Today.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Today, AKA Putin-Web. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK,

WP:DUEWEIGHT by showing a couple of other sources beyond CJR that cite Meduza's complaint that Hamilton68 won’t disclose which accounts it follows? Thanks. - MrX 🖋 18:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, since it's entirely clear and necessary that they reserve information about their methods, the apologists and malcontents who raise this as a criticism have been widely answered and their concerns rejected. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MrX, even if you don't appreciate Rothrock's comment, it's about the ASD on behalf of Meduza and cited in Newsweek, exactly the kind of indication you earlier suggested was necessary to establish notability of commentary (e.g. two reliable sources, in this case Newsweek and CJR). I have never looked at Meduza's website or articles and I don't even know if the CJR and Newsweek are referring to one article in particular, or relying on Meduza's expertise in general. Unless you are very interested in the details of their criticism — and I think that'd be a valid interest — those details would appear immaterial here, since Newsweek and CJR can be cited directly. -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, CJR can be quoted instead, if people object to Meduza, although I don't see a reason for that either. Of course, Rothrock's piece, being opinion, must be attributed. — JFG ^talk 20:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a couple of secondary sources expressing the same point of view about the same thing, not random tidbits of criticism from different sources vaguely giving a nod to Meduza. Ideally, let's not quote sources. Let's paraphrase them.- MrX 🖋 00:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: It's mentioned in this CNN article: "The group does not disclose which accounts it tracks and CNN has not independently verified its findings." The criticism is alluded to in this Politico article, though it focuses more on a rebuttal from one of ASD's co-founders, so I added it to try to achieve NPOV. ^Falling_Gravity 01:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity: OK, why don't we write something like "ASD doesn't list the accounts that it tracks fearing that the accounts would simply be shut down."? Note that Meduza mentions the lack of account disclosure but criticizes the "lack of methodological clarity", the latter of which seem to be contradicted by the Politico article (a source that I trust).- MrX 🖋 01:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what I originally had was "ASD founders Laura Rosenberger and Jamie Fly say these accounts are not disclosed so to prevent them from getting shut down." The "clarity" of their methodology is relative, so those viewpoints could also be mentioned if we follow

WP:BALANCE. ^Falling_Gravity 01:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The improved version should be restored and as always discussion should continue on talk if there are specific issues anyone wishes to raise. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also we must remember

WP:CCC. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• To summarize, the original RfC concluded with "no consensus" on include my original proposed sentence, but said there were certain textual requirements that could merit inclusion in the article ("if Greenwald's criticism is to be included, it must be written carefully and in a moderate tone, in line with the available sources, and balanced with opposing views"). Thucydides411 and I drafted text we thought met these requirements. After seeking input on this text, the admin who closed the RfC said my drafted text could be included in the article. I don't believe there's consensus on the exact wording of this text, and I've welcomed most changes. As for the current debate, I think the "grain of salt" text may be getting something mixed up, since it doesn't appear in the Atlantic article. ^Falling_Gravity 00:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You appear to be misstating the close. It didn't say "if text includes X it should be included". It said "if text is inserted it should include X" - Those are not the same thing. Specifically and clearly it stated there was no consensus for inclusion. However I and others tried to improve your article text rather than just revert it, so I'm at a loss to see how reverting the improvements advances the cause of good article content. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Like I said, I'm open to improvements to the text, and I'm either supportive or agnostic to most of the recent changes. My one issue is the "grain of salt" sentence, which doesn't seem to appear in the referenced article. ^Falling_Gravity 01:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I saw you were making a constructive attempt to add content, which is why I did not revert your addition and instead joined others in editing it. The "grain of salt" bit is from the CJR article cited for the previous sentence. So you're right, that attribution would need to be fixed.[14] SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @SPECIFICO: As you are contesting my revert of your changes to FallingGravity's text, the minimum courtesy would be to ping him and me. You are the only one relentlessly pushing for erasure of any criticism of the article subject. That is the definition of POV-pushing, and yes it is disruptive. Moreover, you engaged in source misrepresentation by artfully reducing Greenwald's criticism to a mere remark that ASD includes neocons and Democrats[15][16] and that their views should be taken with "a grain of salt",[17] which is nowhere in the cited source by Beinart, nor in Greenwald's original piece. Finally, you are grossly misrepresenting the outcome of the RfC, as was discussed at length in the #Reception thread above, including with the closer. Please do not continue down this path of obstructionism and stonewalling. — JFG ^talk 00:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that ASD is an arm of the German Marshall Fund of the United States which got $4 million in US government grants in 2018.

http://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/GMF_18%20FS_Final.pdf

"Advocacy group" should be linked to the page

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

although the definitions there do not seem to include government funded institutions.

Keith McClary (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, please self-revert: [18]. I don't want to get into an edit war with you. I've challenged your previous edits, so reinstating them without consensus is edit-warring.

I also remind you of what

@

WP:DUE. That requires consensus. Right now, you're just edit-warring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a BLP violation smearing the individuals named in the lead and elsewhere, it is several years old before the Mueller report and even more such corroboration of what Greenwald denies, and it was UNDUE at the time of its publication. Moreover, there have been personnel changes since Greenwald's comment. Greenwald's writing is mostly considered

WP:FRINGE

opinion, and gets minimal attention today. It failed to gain support at an RfC even before it was deprecated by subsequent events. The onus would be on you to get this kind of clearly policy-violating text in any article on this site. Try BLPN or NPOVN for starters.

Given that there is no consensus for this, and given that the landscape has changed considerably since this was first proposed, I think it would be best to leave it out. There has been far too much Glenn Greenwald on Wikipedia lately anyway. - MrX 🖋 17:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, the sources I listed before haven't gone away, and I can't find a source saying he holds "fringe opinions", and ASD was never even mentioned in the

Mueller Report. If we can include a couple sentences praising the group's bipartisanship then we can also include a sentence of criticism. Once again, our personal opinions of GG doesn't matter here. ^Falling_Gravity 02:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Falling Gravity, one rarely finds a source stating "so and so is fringe" because normal mainstream thinkers simply ignore such stuff. Greenwald has not been taken seriously in the mainstream for many years. Same with Taibbi. They both need to be removed from this article. Both of their cites are from years ago before the Mueller report validated the intelligence community's high confidence assessment that Russia interfered in the US elections. Moreover Greenwald is just a name-caller, angrily denigrating the mainstream professionals who work for the organization. There's no specific criticism of the organization's work, just a stupid ad hominem that Greenwald expressing an outsider POV. The personnel he denigrates aren't even the ones currently running ASD. So both Greenwald and Taibbi need to be removed from this article. There is no satisfactory way to use UNDUE and outdated opinions from fringe and insignificant provocateurs. Meanwhile, I am looking for some more recent and more cogent analysis of this organization's work, and I think there may be some we could use. Let's get the Greenwald bit out of the article. There's no consensus for the language you inserted, and you know there is opposition to this content. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

BLP policy applies on talk pages, and it applies even to journalists you don't like. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Mostly dismissive mentions of Greenwald's work for years As I said, there are rarely profiles of fringe figures, they just fade a.w.a.y. As to the content, WP is an encyclopedia. We don't link-farm angry ad hominem fringe attack into an article about an organization and its work. Greenwald offered no analysis of either, just BLP smear disparagement -- another thing that we don't do in Wikipedia. If they were well-founded, you could proposes Greenwald's smears for the BLPs of the people he despises. They'd fail there too, because they are only smears, with no basis or reason. There was no consensus to include this content, only the anodyne statement that if we could agree on acceptable language, that would be OK. Well, you have not found acceptable language yet. If you're interested in improving this article you would consider the flaws of your previous attempts and make a well-reasoned proposal. The facts of the Russian interference are now beyond doubt. If you're going to start from a position that denies that predicate, it's unlikely you'll find any acceptable proposal. Of course, if you hate this organization you could actually find recent RS criticism of it. In that case, you would improve the article and alert our readers to the dangers you percieve. Irrelevant statements based-- Greenwald will not stay in the article, same with Taibbi. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mostly dismissive mentions of Greenwald's work for years": You're mischaracterizing the secondary sources. The pieces in Salon and the Washington Post mostly agree with Glenn Greenwald's views on the ASD. Peter Beinart in The Atlantic supports some aspects of Greenwald's views, and criticizes other aspects of his views. The piece in Politico criticizes Greenwald. The Columbia Journalism Review is neutral towards Greenwald's argument. You're making claims about the sources that have nothing to do with what the sources actually state. Stop doing that.

"If you're interested in improving this article you would consider the flaws of your previous attempts and make a well-reasoned proposal." I did previously make a well-reasoned proposal, which gained consensus for inclusion. See the above talk page section, #Reception. Unless a new consensus for removal forms, the old consensus for inclusion still stands.

Finally,

WP:BLPTALK. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@MrX: I don't see how including Greenwald's criticism of the ASD is in any way a BLP issue. I think you're really reaching here. If you think it is, then you should go to BLPN and ask what other editors think. The onus is on you here, not me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, MrX, I mistook SPECIFICO's unsigned comment for yours. SPECIFICO, go to BLPN and see if anyone agrees that mentioning Greenwald's criticism violates BLP policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, I am currently a paid intern with the Alliance for Securing Democracy. Upon looking over the Wikipedia article for the organization I noticed some outdated information that I thought it proper to request edits for.

1. * REPLACE all instances of the word "bipartisan" WITH the word "non-partisan".

* Reason for the change: ASD recently changed its identity from being bipartisan to non-partisan in 2021. 
* Reference supporting change: (1.) https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/551760-restore-trust-in-our-democracy-through-more-election-transparency/ at the bottom of the article, in the author biographies, “...the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a nonpartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.”

2. After the line, “Its daily operations are led by Zack Cooper, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute,” ADD: “Laura Thornton, formerly of International IDEA joined the group as its new director in May of 2021.”

* Reason for the change: Laura Thornton took over as ASD’s director after Laura Rosenberger joined the U.S. National Security Council in February.
* References supporting change: (1.) Laura Thornton’s ASD profile webpage: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/author/laura-thornton/ (2.) Reuters article about Laura Rosenberger joining White House: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-china-rosenberger/biden-picks-clinton-adviser-rosenberger-as-white-house-china-director-idUSKBN29K0FU/ (3.) Caucasian Journal article partially about Laura Thornton’s joining the ASD: https://english.caucasianjournal.org/2021/03/laura-thornton-becomes-director-of.html/

3. REPLACE instances of the phrase “Hamilton 68” WITH “Hamilton 2.0.”

* Reason for the change: A couple of years ago, ASD revamped the Hamilton dashboard, changing its name from Hamilton 68 to Hamilton 2.0
* Reference supporting change: Hamilton 2.0 Methodology and FAQs webpage: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/hamilton-2-0-methodology-faqs/ 

4. REPLACE the line, “In September 2017, the group launched a similar German-language website focused on possible Russian influence in German politics,” WITH, “In September 2017, and again in May of 2021, the group launched similar German-language dashboards focused on possible Russian influence in German politics ahead of the federal elections in those respective years.”

* Reason for the change: ASD launched a second Germany-focused elections dashboard earlier this year.
* References: (1.) ASD’s German Elections Project webpage: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/2021-german-elections/ (2.) The Dashboard itself: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/german-election-dashboard/

4. After the phrase: “As of 2021, it had expanded to combating,” REPLACE “China's United Front Work Department,“ WITH, “the malign influence of the Chinese and Iranian governments and their state-backed media outlets.”

* Reason for the change: ASD monitors the malign influence activities of Iran, in addition to Russia and China.
* References supporting change: (1.) ASD’s China page: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/china/ (2.) It’s Iran page:  https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/iran/ (3.) An Italian-language article discussing its recent analysis of the coverings of Afghanistan’s collapse in Russian, Chinese, and Iranian state-backed media: https://formiche.net/2021/08/propaganda-anti-usa-afghanistan/ (4.) Article that references an ASD Middle East Fellow discussing Iranian election interference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/

--Aguyinanambulance (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following quote was recently removed from the page:

Yoel Roth wrote that the list used by the Hamilton dashboard "falsely accuses a bunch of legitimate right-leaning accounts of being Russian bots. I think we need to just call this out on the bullshit it is".

The quote comes from the Reason article. Reason is a green-tick source. The quote was replaced with the following sentence:

Yoel Roth believed that ASD's list of Kremlin-affiliated accounts included "false accusations against a number of legitimate right-leaning accounts."

This sentence contains a quote which does not appear in the source, so has presumably been invented by the editor who inserted it. Any comments? Burrobert (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither quote looks totally right. The sentence about "falsely accuses" and the sentence with "call them out" are from two different dates, I believe they should not be posted together in that order without even ellipsis. The Reason article shows that, and a more complete thread is here. Of course what's in the article now, ""false accusations against a number of legitimate right-leaning accounts", is apparently not based on what Mr Roth actually wrote so it is worse. I'd favour referring to Matt Taibbi's twitter account but picking only what others decided is important. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burrobert, thanks for explaining your concern. The whole thing is really UNDUE. We are elevating one person's opinion, with only the single non-mainstream (even though RS) analysis piece. And the Twitter Files themselves are cherrypicked and framed by highly opinionated actors Musk and Taibbi. It would be better to leave the whole thing out until we have significant mainstream coverage and evaluation of the subject of this short paragraph. The edit I made, with the error you identified -- I should have removed the quotation marks -- was my attempt to lessen the elevation of that remark. The moderation czar is not a notable expert, just a guy doing his job and possibly annoyed at ASD looking over his shoulder. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Peter Gulutzan it seems that I should have included an ellipsis. Since the two parts of the quote appear next to each other in the article I assumed they were made at the same time. Regarding the quote that you have re-added SPECIFICO, obviously the quote marks will need to be removed. Burrobert (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And just how is Taibbi cherry-picking!? He clearly shows images of Hamilton 68's false accusations against conservatives, to the point that even Roth, who is hardly a conservative, called them out for what it was. How are you going to explain that away? 128.187.116.2 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taibbi and Musk have selected what to present and how and in what context and with what emphasis, etc. etc. We cannot represent their opinionated views here and provide that as if it were an NPOV narrative such as we are sworn to present on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is tendentious synthesis and misuse of an opinion piece for stating a speculative suggestion as a fact, i.e. the opposite of NPOV. The sources you cited were published in December, so it makes absolutely no sense to imply they are relevant in the context.

Politrukki (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Reason.com per RSP: Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. We need a better source for this contentious material. Have Taibbi's tweets been covered by reliable sources yet? If not, maybe we should wait until they have. Meanwhile, here the ASD response, which puts into question a lot of what is in his Twitter thread: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/fact-sheet-hamilton-68-dashboard-2017-2018/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Taibbi responded to the response. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a battle of the primary sourced opinions. I certainly would have no problem including a well-sourced narrative if secondary reliable sources - multiple - give this significant coverage. Then we can triangulate what the crux of the issue(s) may be and present an NPOV account to our readers. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.dailydot.com/debug/hamilton68-twitter-russian-bots/ "[D]ocuments Taibbi reviewed said Twitter was uncertain about the dashboard from the get-go and did not believe anyone on it should be qualified or quantified as a foreign agent. According to a review it commissioned, just 36 of the 644 accounts were physically registered in Russia. Taibbi also unearthed some damning quotes from Twitter executives that he shared, who didn’t believe that Hamilton 68 was accurately representing his platform."
• https://www.foxnews.com/media/latest-twitter-files-show-media-dems-relied-single-source-alleging-russian-bot-activity-scam same Twitter executive "bullshit" quote

I see the reason.com (Robby Soave) source is tagged as "better source needed". Maybe one of these will do. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently considered important only by right wing and conspiracy theory websites. I have searched several times and found no mainstream source that describes this as a significant fact about Twitter, the FBI, ASD, or anything other than Taibbi and Musk. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Dot is not a conspiracy theory website as far as I'm aware, though I'm aware that consensus is shaky on Fox News. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I would not use Daily Dot as a significant source for contentious or controversial content. It is not really a mainstream publication with a strong history of editorial oversight and integrity. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This source seems alright: Twitter Files 15 furthers the misunderstanding of 'Hamilton 68'. It's quite in depth, and was written by what looks to be a respectable enough journalist (has written for NPR & WaPo in the past) for
  WP:NEWSORG as far as reliability is concerned. Endwise (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I took a stab at it based on this source and the Daily Dot one. Endwise (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good addition. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better. Daily Dot is clickbaity borderline RS (in this case, they've basically just copied and pasted Taibbi's tweets and added a sentence or two) but this seems enough with the three sources including the ASD response. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When I said "Much better" I meant this version, not the later versions that included opinion pieces in unreliable sources and introduced inaccuracies. It's important that we don't overclaim and that we don't use highly partisan opinions without attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The header of this section is not neutral. We have the opinion of one or more Twitter employees in the face of an external organization, ASD, questioning or criticizing their platform and the possibly the individuals' personal judgment or competence. It is not NPOV to report the employees' statements as if they had found the truth or a smoking gun that invalidates the ASD's work or categorizations as false in Wikivoice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Please be aware: revisions which change this article's content and meaning, whilst also lazily leaving the previously cited sources intact, leads to failed verification. This creates problematic Neutrality and

Please be mindful that editors including new material in the first place MUST ensure the citations given directly support whatever new contributions are made (See:

If desired new material is no longer in alignment with what the cited source says: an entirely new source is required.

Happy trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This means no using bullshit sources which predate the sections content by months in an effort to axegrind and shorehorn whatever POV one has into the article whilst simultaneously violating BLP. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not contributors. This page is a Contentious Topic and the highest standards apply here. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dozens(!) actively offering opinions at RSP, and on offer here, aren't arbiters of reliability. Our beloved, upstream, external sources are – They say IJR is reliable.[25][26]

Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged as opinion ("commentary"), so a discussion about its wholesale reliability is unnecessary and citing

WP:RSOPINION

suffices.

I'll note though that that regarding this: The dozens(!) actively offering opinions at RSP, and on offer here, aren't arbiters of reliability -- that is actually essentially how consensus on Wikipedia works. If community consensus on its reliability is against you, it is not overridden by your saying so. Endwise (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

biases

we struggle against).

Thank $DEITY we have Wikipedians to dictate what is The Truth™ – especially one varying day to day, with minimal input from the broader "community". It works so well for Croatia…[27]

The IJR discussions at RSP are stale, BTW – you're free to reopen one…

If reliable sources say another source is reliable, it is reliable. Existing consensus says we objectively (shocking, I know…) follow what upstream reliable sources say – whether we

like it or not. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is very far from a reliable source. It's a partisan opinion piece in an opinion magazine, which has sourced it from The Western Journal, which also looks unreliable. If an opinion is noteworthy, we can include it with attribution, but I see no reason to think this opinion is noteworthy. We can't use it as a source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this not RS for any factual statements, but the whole event is still not supported by solid mainstream reporting. For significant content, we do not have to be scraping the fringe media for sources. There's a significant NPOV WEIGHT issue with respect to the topic of this page. The Musk/Taibbi events are well covered in their own page on the Twitter Files and the two individuals' pages. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what I see here, for my direct consumption. Wikipedia is simply a digestion of a select few articles from a highly regulated list of reliable sources. If reporting is about Reliable Sources and not picked up by peer Reliable Sources, old reporting is frozen in time, because corrections have become a problem for modern media.

Much like tracking 600+ twitter accounts of mostly conservative anti large government Americans is tracking Russians bots/trolls. Nothing is supposed to make be factual here, it is supposed to be where the frozen in time and space Reliable Sources have promoted the story to be. 2601:248:C000:3F:D982:CF6B:3668:85B (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the two sources which are being used to show IJR is considered reliable by other sources: the first, USA Today, doesn't actually say that, and the second, a Medium blogpost, doesn't mention IJR. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the new revelations by the Twitter Files this article and especially it's Dashboard 68 should be majorly overhauled. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/leaks-show-twitter-found-no-evidence-of-russian-involvement-in-2018-hashtag-campaign/2786498# Katzmann83 (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s incredible that the Hamilton 68 wiki page still sits here as though they weren’t caught red-handed pumping a steady stream of lies into the world to overturn an election. 104.33.232.183 (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The methodology of the Hamilton 68 dashboard, as presented in this article, is materially misrepresented. See [28]https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ASD-Policy-Brief-Latest-edited.pdf for the original.

1. The methodology states that "Not all content in this network is 'created' by Russia. A significant amount—probably a majority—of content is created by third parties and then amplified by the network because it is relevant to Russian messaging themes." Saying "probably a majority" was created by third parties and not Russia is a vast underestimate. Indeed, it appears from reliable data exposed in the Twitter Files that the vast majority of the content was not created by Russia. The statement in the methodology is either an intentional falsehood or a major error resulting from huge methodological failures.

2. While it is true that ASD said not all accounts identified in the network were controlled by Russia, that is not a refutation of Roth's statement that the ASD used "shoddy methodology" to incorrectly label authentic accounts as "Russian stooges without evidence". Indeed, as noted above, the ASD claimed that a large proportion of the content in the network (as much as half) was created by Russia, implying that a large proportion of accounts were acting as stooges by repeating it.

3. The methodology makes these statements, patently ridiculous in the light of what the Twitter Files exposed: "We expect that we would have faced criticism for identifying the 600 accounts, and we expected (correctly) that we would face criticism for not identifying the accounts. We choose not to identify the accounts for the following reasons: "1. As noted above, our metrics are very accurate, but not 100 percent accurate. We believe based on the performance of the metrics described above and the subsequent manual review, that the monitoring list is at least 98 percent accurate, but that leaves as many as 12 accounts that may not be relevant. We are not willing to publicly attribute even one specific account incorrectly. "2. A 98 percent accuracy rate is, however, more than adequate to perform analysis on the aggregate set. "3. If we identified the users in the dataset, they would certainly change their behavior and render the dashboard essentially useless."

4. The burden of proof rests on the person making the allegation. ASD failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to support any of its allegations. It is not the job of Matt Taibbi or anyone else to prove their allegations false. It's on them to prove their allegations true. TwoGunChuck (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]