Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

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, and "transatlantic", meaning both US and Germany, 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)

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

References

POV

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sources

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Contested Characterization

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)

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)

@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)

Projects of the AfSD

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)

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)

Gratuitous Greenwald

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 above, and explained how it applied. Here, you're just asserting that I misrepresented 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 WP:SELFPUBLISHED to include The Intercept. You know full well that The Intercept has an editorial team (one that comes from well-respected newspapers) and employs a staff of journalists beyond Greenwald. It's a news organization. You don't like it, but that's not grounds for disregarding it. If you think The Intercept is unreliable, take it up with the 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)

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)

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

(1) This article violates WP:NPOV, because it is written like a press release and contains no criticism of the Alliance for Security Democracy. Greenwald's comments are a clear case of WP:NPOV. If SPECIFICIO doesn't like Greenwald's comments, I would invite him to provide a better criticism of the Alliance. Until he has brought the entry into his idea of compliance with 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:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." So we do put "denigration" of an organization into its article. We are required to do so under WP:NPOV and 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:RS. 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Homeland preparedness news

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)

POV and the absence of a criticism section

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Citation needed for the above. Point to a thread on WP:RSN where The Intercept is found to be unreliable. It's a professional journalistic organization with editorial staff who previously had significant positions at major newspapers; which has shown that it has a policy of corrections and retractions, when appropriate; and which has writers on staff whose reporting on the NSA and Bush's warrantless wiretapping program earned a Pulitzer Prize. If you want to argue that it's not a reliable source, you're free to go to WP:RSN and argue that case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 if The Intercept is a reliable source. It manifestly is, and if you disagree, the onus is on you to go to WP:RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Publications are not "RS" -- citations are RS for article content. Please read WP:RS and WP:V, including [WP:ONUS]] before commenting further. ~~`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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 The Intercept in general as a source on Wikipedia, then go to WP:RSN and make the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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.

Criticism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RfC about Glenn Greenwald's criticism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article include or exclude criticism of ASD made by Glenn Greenwald? The proposed text is "Journalist Glenn Greenwald criticized the ASD, calling it 'the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials, and the world's most militant, militaristic, neocons.'," sourced to The Intercept and Columbia Journalism Review. ^Falling_Gravity 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: CJR is one suggested secondary source, though I've compiled a list of other possible secondary sources below. ^Falling_Gravity 18:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the note

I don't think it's appropriate to add this so late in the game after so many editors have responded. Please move it to the discussion section if you think it adds anything you did not already state there. Otherwise you can delete your comment and this comment of mine. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC) I don't believe this note significantly alters the original RfC, as it's just informing users of the existence of other secondary sources. FallingGravity 18:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC) In your opinion. Frankly, it goes to show you did not make a full effort to support your proposed text before launching the cumbersome RfC process. Meanwhile I don't see that you have responded to any of the criticisms of this UNDUE proposal, so that really would be helpful and to the point, if you care to do so. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC) I was reading some comments that were wondering whether CJR was enough to support the proposed text, so I did some searching and found multiple sources discussing Greenwald's article. FallingGravity 06:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Include. Greenwald is a notable pundit, and his views are not dismissed as "fringe" in the secondary source article from CJR. However, I believe this belongs in a section titled "Reception", as WP:Criticism sections are generally best avoided because they can become weighted toward only negative reactions. That way, if one finds sources praising ASD, those could also be added for balance. ^Falling_Gravity 07:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Greenwald's views on ASD are also cited in a Washington Post op-ed by Katrina vanden Heuvel, and in a Salon article, further undermining claims they are "fringe" or "undue". Balancing positive reactions could, as Neutrality mentions below, be added from this Politico article, praising ASD for its bipartisanship. ^Falling_Gravity 23:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Katrina's got egg on her face from The Nation's hacking denial fiasco. Salon is slightly worse than HuffPo as a source, though not as bad as Daily Caller and Intercept. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever "egg" that is on Katrina's "face" because of Patrick Lawrence's article on the contested report by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, The Washington Post, a major non-fringe newspaper, decided to publish her editorial, which included Greenwald's views. Given all these sources, it would be UNDUE to not include his commentary. ^Falling_Gravity 01:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So what article content would Katrina's Op-Ed support? That she repeats ad hominem smears? That so-and-so crapped out on foreign policy 25 years ago? What does this have to do with ASD. What she seems to be saying is that GG went nuts and took to ad hominem attacks on people now associated with ASD. But the topic of this article is ASD itself. What is the suggested content that relates to ASD? If there is some, that would help focus the discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The whole WaPo op-ed is about ASD, if you would actually read it, and backs up the proposed text. You seem pretty well-versed in what you call "ad hominem attacks", labeling Greenwald an "one-hit wonder", an "angry misfit", a "fringe commentator" and calling him "nuts". If you don't agree with Greenwald that's fine, but that's no reason to censor his commentary. ^Falling_Gravity 02:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Gotcha-fail! No, you really miss the point. I said all those things to remind everyone how insignificant and non-noteworthy a character he is these days and as a characterization of his inability to come up with any cogent substantive criticism of ASD, instead reaching for a string of cheap personal disparagements. Of course we evaluate him personally when considering whether his personal opinion is noteworthy. His problem is he personalizes his discussion of an organization and its actions and tries to smear them like a high school locker room putdown artist. Yo momma's a neocon. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) P.S. of course I read the Op-Ed. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include Greenwald's commentary, and more generally, the commentary in the CJR. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

* Include Taibbi and Greenwald are both respected award-winning journalists (Greenwald even won a prestigious Polk award as well as a Pulitzer prize). To smear them as "fringe" is absurd and the fact that other editors here are claiming they are "fringe" just proves that they have an agenda. PZP-003 (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC) I have a concern/question about this "survey" - how long does it usually take before the survey concludes? My concern is that this is being used as a tactic by clearly biased editors (who unfortunately seem abundant on any article related to Donald Trump) to keep reliably sourced accurate information from being added to Wikipedia articles. Banned sockpuppet

The correct statement is that Greenwald USED TO BE a respected journalist. He's definitely become fringe since then and is busy pusjhing conspiracy theories.[3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Just so other users know, the article Volunteer Marek linked to is written by a strident critic of Greenwald, as well as liberal hawk....so it should be taken with a BIG grain of salt. PZP-003 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Banned sockpuppet

Well OF COURSE it was written by a "critic of Greenwald" seeing as how the link is... a criticism of Greenwald. What you want me to do? Find a criticism of Greenwald which doesn't actually criticize Greenwald? Please stop being absurd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - While Greenwald is a respected journalist, this does not meet WP:WEIGHT and would tend to skew neutral point of view. My rule of thumb for including such quoted opinions is that at least two or three reliable third-party sources take note of it. CJR does not mention the proposed opinion at all.- MrX 🖋 13:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a third source which criticizes the ASD:https://www.thenation.com/article/our-russia-fixation-is-devolving-into-an-assault-on-political-discourse ... But I guess The Nation will be considered "fringe" or "conspiracy" now by some of the other users here. PZP-003 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Banned sockpuppet

That source doesn't support the proposed content. The proposed content is not "The ASD has been criticized".- MrX 🖋 19:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: How about this source from Salon? It uses a different quote from the same article, but I think it definitely supports the proposed content. ^Falling_Gravity 23:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: It does help, but not enough for me to support inclusion. As far as I know, Salon is not generally regarded as a reliable source, although that's probably not much of a factor in this case.- MrX 🖋 23:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Greenwald is a one-hit wonder, an angry misfit whose recent work does not reflect thoughtful mainstream commentary. Thus it's WP:UNDUE. His organ, the Intercept, is a concoction he cobbled funding for to promote his own work and POV essays. Thus its cherrypicked WP:PRIMARY. His flip disparagement of career national security professionals has nothing to do with ASD, its mission, its actions, its methods, etc. Thus it's WP:BLP-smearing and off-topic for this article, which is about ASD, not whether GG admires government servants or US national defense. The Columbia Journalism Review bit is the barest off-hand mention of GG absurdly calling folks "notorious right wing war-mongers" in a long CJR article that is not about the subject of ASD or its program. Thus it fails WP:NPOV Greenwald has approximately no credibility in current-day discourse. He was an early denier of the Russian interference in the American Politics, and rather than correct his earlier nonsense attacks on US intelligence and law enforcement, he's been doubling down with desperate, off-topic personal attacks on long-serving US Government professionals as if they were going to replay the attack on Saddam next Tuesday. There is plenty to say about this organization and there will be plenty of reasoned evaluation of its work and its methods and credibility. We don't dive for dirt from a fringe commentator. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that Taibbi is on the table here, but for the record he is beneath contempt and his opinions are meaningless. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and Volunteer Marek seem real objective here, labeling well-respected mainstream award-winning journalists like Taibbi and Greenwald as "beneath contempt" and "fringe conspiracy theorists". Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. Also, if you have to go back 20+ years to when Taibbi wrote for the eXile, that's not a good sign. Besides, Taibbi has apologized for what he wrote back then and said it was a mistake. PZP-003 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Banned sockpuppet

First, cut it out with the personal attacks. Second, whether they're "well-respected" and "mainstream" is precisely what we're discussing here. If you're going to label anyone who disagrees with you as "not objective" by default then there's no point in discussion since you're engaged in circular logic. (And as far Taibbi is concerned, he wrote for the eXile 20 years, ago but his book came out in, what, 2016? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Also to the point as to "dated" references is the entire body of discredited The Nation denialist nonsense that claimed that the Russian hack was an inside caper at DNC headquarters. With a dozen Russians indicted and loads of evidence about social media disruption now public, that is a boomerang "criticism" (such as it was) about ASD. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

How is there loads of evidence if no US intelligence or law enforcement agency has seen the DNC servers? עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You will have to take responsibility for reading the news yourself. The rest of us are not here to rehash the thousands of references that have been published over the past 2-3 years. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

First, when you stop lying and making personal attacks on me and other users I will treat you with the same respect. Second, when you label anyone who disagrees with you as "not objective" or "fringe" or "beneath contempt" then by default there is no point in discussion since you're engaged in circular logic. Third, you are obfuscating the facts once again: Taibbi wrote the eXile book in the late 90s and it was published in 2000 (like I said 20 years ago) PZP-003 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Banned sockpuppet

That's a second (at least) personal attack you've made, right after you were warned about that very kind of behavior. You're right on the verge of getting sanctioned. If you're going to accuse me of lying please show me where. I haven't. Neither have I made any personal attacks on you. Again, show me where or withdraw your false accusation. Third, I've never said anyone is "beneath contempt". So add that to the list of things you're making up. And no, I did not label YOU as "fringe" or "not objective". I said Greenwald is fringe. Because he is. And that's not circular logic. Please at least actually read what other people say before attacking them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I refuse to play your game. You clearly didn't take in what I wrote about how you consistently lie and obfuscate facts throughout Wikipedia (you did the exact thing again a third time now with your above response). The strange thing is that you do this weird psychological trick where you blame the user that you smear by denying everything and then claiming innocence. PZP-003 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Banned sockpuppet

One last time - proof, in the forms of diffs that I "consistently lie" or we're going to WP:AE. It's impossible to have discussion with someone who keeps making false accusations and attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - yes, these are fringe views from a guy who was ONCE a respected journalists before shredding his own credibility (Greenwald, see link above) and a guy who was always fringe (when was Taibbi suppose to be "respected" exactly? When he wrote denigrating and misogynistic crap about women in the fringe publication the eXile [4]?). Even if these weren't fringe, they'd still be cherry picked. Overall this is a very clear attempt to POV the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unless balancing material is added as part of a coherent whole (along the lines of FallingGravity's suggestion of a "Reception" section). I'm fine with saying "A, B, and C have praised the group, saying ______, while Y and Z has criticized it, saying _______." But I'm not OK with cherry-picking two critical views. (Especially Taibbi's.) Neutrality^talk 14:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Do you have any sources that praise ASD? I tried looking for them, but couldn't find them. I did find a lot of sources that cite the Hamilton 68 dashboard, although many of those noted they do not reveal which accounts they follow. ^Falling_Gravity 17:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Many cite the ASD's projects, and this column is quite positive. Neutrality^talk 17:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That seems like quite a thoughtful article that gives lots of context and examines relevant issues in a balanced manner. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That Politico piece can also be cited here. It's worth noting that it also discusses Greenwald's commentary on ASD, and also discusses the criticisms that have been made of Hamilton 68 (e.g., not disclosing which accounts it considers trolls). It also mentions other critical articles about Hamilton 68, including this one in The Federalist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That not a criticism. Not revealing to the Russians which accounts you suspect is a criticism? Really? Don't waste our time with the Federalist. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a criticism which several well-known commentators have made. It's a criticism that the Politico piece, which you said above was "thoughtful" and "balanced," discusses. That thoughtful and balanced piece also references The Federalist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You really need to consider the difference between acknowledging the existence of thoughts, opinions, wild animals, natural aromas and other phenomena -- without jumping to the entirely unrelated proposition that any of them is automatically fit to be cited in a particular Encyclopedia article. I can discuss Tucker Carlson, Paula Deen, Sammy the Clown and Bugs Bunny, but I'm not going to quote any of them on the details of social media metrics. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If Paula Deen, Sammy the Clown and Bugs Bunny write articles that are discussed in the Columbia Journalism Review and Politico, or which get published in The Nation, The Intercept, Salon and Rolling Stone, then it is worth mentioning their commentary in Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You can beat your head against the wall until it's putty, but that will not make Salon, Rolling Stone, or Intercept good sources. There will always be a better source than those for any content that is in fact noteworthy. And saying CJR "discussed" GG's "criticism" of ASD is like saying Sara Palin "discussed" Russia in her news interview. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Salon, Rolling Stone, The Intercept (and presumably also The Nation and The Atlantic) are not good sources, but Politico is? Based on what reasoning? I don't understand your Sarah Palin reference. CJR discussed Greenwald's criticism. How is that analogous to Sarah Palin's statement? It just looks like you're grasping at straws here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include - Greenwald is not fringe; ridiculous. DoubleCross (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would not call him "ridiculous". SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include: Greenwald's opinion is notable; plus the commentary in the CJR in general. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Greetings coffman. Could you elaborate on what statements in the CJR article give weight to an evaluation of the activities of ASD? To me this looks like a passing mention of zealot crusader Greenwald in the context of a larger and more general reflection on media bias. But I don't see them endorsing GG's views as being substantive, correct, or even journalistic -- just that he's more concerned about Reagan/Bush era retreads than Russia. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fringe view. Greenwald may once have been viewed as a mainstream respectable journalist whose opinions had weight, but those days are gone. And the content itself isn't so much "opinion" as "rant". So WP:UNDUE. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think a well sourced criticism of any organization should be included. However, one must explain what exactly this organization did wrong. Yes, it has been criticized, but for what? Simply telling "they are world's most militant, militaristic, neocons" is not a criticism, but smear. That does not belong anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: From the sources I've read, the main criticism is that some on the left are worried that Democrats are getting too cozy with "neocons". On the flip side, some others are praising ASD for showing bipartisanship. Do you think different wording would help make this clear? ^Falling_Gravity 04:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I am even not sure what was the meaning of the text suggested to include. So, the Democrats and leftists happened to agree with "neocons" that the Democracy is in danger. Yes, it is certainly in danger with such administration. So what? This is something very obvious. Not informative. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include - As FallingGravity shows below Greenwald's criticism was noted in Salon, The Atlantic, Politico and most significantly, Columbia Journalism Review. That puts it well beyond the standards for WP:WEIGHT in most articles and (from what I can see) the single most noted comment on ASD across all sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Lamb, do you think that GG's denigrations of the ASD personnel are criticisms of ASD, or at best emotive reactions of concern -- like when you are sitting at a bar with a hot new guy and you see your ex sit down at the other end? If the latter, I don't think we can put it in this article, although it certainly could be placed in GG's bio article. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. This is a textbook example of the sort of sensationalism we should try to avoid. Greenwald is highly notable and certainly not fringe. However he is given to hyperbole, and if we quoted all of his alarmist language then the encyclopedia would be littered with a lot of unencyclopedic language. This is really a cherry-picking of the most inflammatory language in a primary source. The RfC suggests that it's also sourced to the Columbia Journalism School, but that's blatantly false. The quote isn't in the CJR source. All it says is, "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." That bears little to no resemblance to the proposal. If we're going to include something about Greenwald, we should follow CJR's lead. If the closer wants to interpret my comment as a !vote for "Include but rewrite completely" then I'm fine with that. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your objection despite my "include" vote. Moderating the language and paraphrasing his most salient points would be an improvement. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Right-on. But since GG's last "salient point" occured 4-1/2 years ago, it's a sticky wicket. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text is just to give users an idea of what could be added to the article. The exclude/include !votes is for Glenn Greenwald's views on ASD more generally. ^Falling_Gravity 20:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include – I don't understand the specific animus of certain editors against anything that Greenwald ever writes. This obstruction has been going on since September 2017, time to drop the stick. Greenwald is a strongly-opinionated investigative journalist and a noted expert on U.S. intelligence/surveillance and foreign policy, he is frequently cited by respectable sources for his views and analyses. Quite the opposite of FRINGE, even if he rubs some people the wrong way. — JFG ^talk 07:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Being a commentator does not make one an expert, which he is not. And most of the time when he's "cited by respectable sources" it's to debunk him or point out something ridiculous he's said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

... or to award a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting, or to cite him neutrally and then express similar criticisms, as the Columbia Journalism Review does here. A lot of people disagree with Greenwald's views, a lot of people agree with his views - he's divisive, but hardly "fringe," and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Especially in a case like this, when his article on ASD has prompted a large amount of follow-up discussion in publications like The Nation, The Washington Post and The Atlantic (much of it echoing his criticisms), it's clear that his commentary clears WP:DUE by a wide margin. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

GG mention is minimal in CJR story. CJR's not in the business of anti-establishment tagbombing and there's no Pulitzer Prize for name-calling nasty warmongers. Don't misrepresent the source. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include, per FallingGravity's excellent demonstration below that Greenwald's position here is cited in other high-quality publications, and per the fact that's he's a renowned expert on American politics. In any event, his commentary on the neocon connections is fascinating. The Neocon movement is an important and evolving component of American politics, and it's not a smear to note that the Alliance for Securing Democracy is connected to it. -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• High quality if he's a rock band. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - All the sources provided give a good case for inclusion, but the proposed text could probably be improved to better summarize Greenwald's criticisms: that establishment Democrats are teaming up with neoconservatives in ASD. Also, we could add praise for ASD from Politico article. 128.187.112.15 (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sounds more like a diatribe than a useful criticism. Can’t we find a criticism that is better than a string of name calling? O3000 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Include The statement is reliably sourced and Greenwald, regardless of opinions about him, is a notable commentator; while some have questioned his credentials as a journalist, there's no precondition that critical analysis of a subject originate from a journalist. When expressed in the form of an opinion, a reliably sourced criticism from any notable person is valid assuming it's not UNDUE. Except in the most extreme cases, I think any necessary caveats needed to contextualize a source are better handled at the source's (Greenwald, in this case) own article via wikilink. That said, this is a very short article and introducing the specific sentence suggested would, in my opinion, be teetering on the edge of WP:UNDUE. In that sense, I am inclined to support Neutrality's position that this should ideally be balanced by counter-commentary, should such counter-commentary exist in equal measure. I approach that position with caution, being reminded of pl:Karol Jakubowicz's description [5] of "superficial objectivity" which he described as the sometimes erroneous view that "only two points of view on social issues were possible". Chetsford (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• But the problem is that GG's disparagement is not an examination or criticism of this organization and its activities. It's a stupid ad hominem that plays great with anti-neocons who find some inexplicable and superficial similarity between concern about Russian meddling in US politics on the one hand and the Bush Administration's lies about WMD's in Iraq prior to the US invasion. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• It may well be an ad hominen attack. I'm not sure on what policy basis we exclude ad hominen attacks provided they aren't UNDUE (a point which I still have some trepidation on given the brevity of this article) and they are so widely reported that they represent a significant element of the discursive ecology surrounding the subject. We have entire articles about ad hominen attacks. Chetsford (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal assessments go in Personal bios. Your comparison is not valid. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Is that a preference or a policy? Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's argument here is that when Greenwald criticizes the political affiliations/beliefs of people leading a political organization, he's engaging in ad hominem. But Greenwald isn't saying, "The leaders of this political group are smelly." He's saying something like, "The leaders of this political group are neoconservatives and hawks." The former would be an irrelevant ad hominem attack. The latter is highly relevant - if you're discussing a political organization, it's legitimate to talk about the political views of its leaders.

It's ironic how SPECIFICO objects to Greenwald's criticism of the political views of the leaders of this organization, calling it ad hominem, while at the same time hurling ad hominem attacks at Greenwald. How is "Greenwald is a one-hit wonder, an angry misfit" anything other than an ad hominem attack?

@Chetsford: If you look at the sourcing below, you'll see that Greenwald's criticism of the group has been discussed by several major publications. The ASD has not gotten that much coverage overall, and Greenwald's piece is probably the most referenced articles about the group. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it basically mentions Greenwald in passing as pointlessly and superficially disparaging ASD for no intelligible reason. Nothingburger with cheese. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Just curious what is this "threaded discussion" section for?? It's been empty now for a while. PZP-003 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It's usually just for general comments or observations about the RfC. ^Falling_Gravity 19:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's more convenient to put all the personal attacks and off-topic gobbledygook "down below" so that the whoever closes this thing will be able to sort it out. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• If included, it should not be alone, but with other's comments on the ASD as well. This will give some balance and reduce the WP:UNDUE issues. I would suggest a new section on views of the ASD be added, IMO. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Would those views include ad hominem smears such as "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are neocon war-mongers" or would it be only such views as discuss the organization, its mission, and its activities? SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just the views taken seriously in reliable sources, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. ^Falling_Gravity 02:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Some 'pro' as well as 'con' in this case, that's why I suggested a new section on public perceptions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Guys, you're missing the point. We are an encyclopedia. Our content is arranged by article topic. This article is about ASD. It's not about what a bunch of "dangerous war-mongers" have been up to lately. That could go on each war-monger's own article. Thus, e.g. it could say on Dick Cheney's bio article that he's been spotted shooting raccoons on his ranch, cussing them and calling bad names at them in Russian. But it can't say on the Halliburton article that its former CEO was a deranged madman who didn't know the difference between a Russian and a rodent. Same thing here. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

actually you wouldn't be able to do that either as its not true and it's POV. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources and UNDUE

Here are some of the relevant sources discussed in this RfC (I've picked the most relevant passages for this RfC, though you can click through for more context):

Publication	Title and author	Relevant passage
The Intercept	"With New D.C. Policy Group, Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons" by Glenn Greenwald	It is, in fact, the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials and the world’s most militant, and militaristic, neocons. The group is led by two longtime Washington foreign policy hands, one from the establishment Democratic wing and the other a key figure among leading GOP neocons.
Columbia Journalism Review	"The media today: Are Russian trolls behind everything?" by Mathew Ingram	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.
The Washington Post	"The emerging unholy alliance between hawkish Democrats and neoconservatives" by Katrina vanden Heuvel	Illustrative of their [Democrats and neoconservatives] emerging alliance, as Glenn Greenwald reports, is yet another Beltway foreign policy initiative: the Alliance for Securing Democracy.
Politico	"The Russian bots are coming. This bipartisan duo is on it." by Susan B. Glasser	Over the last few days alone, Glenn Greenwald of the left-leaning website the Intercept repeatedly trashed the group on Twitter, calling it a “secretive” clique of Republican neocons and “Dem hawks” that is not debunking propaganda but is actually spreading “disinformation” about Russia to a “gullible” national media.
The Atlantic	"Donald Trump's Defenders on the Left" by Peter Beinart	Greenwald has made a similar argument. On Monday he savaged a new foreign policy group, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which brings Clinton campaign veterans together with “neoconservatives” like Bill Kristol. “The song Democrats are now singing about Russia and Putin,” wrote Greenwald, “is one the neocons wrote many years ago, and all of the accompanying rhetorical tactics—accusing those who seek better relations with Moscow of being Putin’s stooges, unpatriotic, of suspect loyalties, etc.—are the ones that have defined the neocons smear campaigns for decades.” There’s a basis to this fear. [...]
Salon	"Are Democrats turning to an alliance between neocons and neoliberals? If so, it’s a terrible strategy" by Conor Lynch	Glenn Greenwald summed up this new Trump era alliance in a recent article on The Intercept, noting that “on the key foreign policy controversies, there is now little to no daylight between leading Democratic Party foreign policy gurus and the Bush-era neocons who had wallowed in disgrace following the debacle of Iraq and the broader abuses of the war on terror.”

Of course there's other useful stuff from these articles that could be added to this article for balance. But let's not forget the leading definition of WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. ^Falling_Gravity 21:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Gravity, that table goes far beyond the scope of this RfC. I think it would be more useful to dispatch with GG and then get on to other sources and statements that can be used for article improvement. Otherwise there's going to be an avalanche of discussion and counterpoint that's irrelevant to the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

All the above secondary sources back up and confirm the proposed text, meaning they are evidence that this is a significant viewpoint published in multiple reliable sources, debunking your "undue" claims. In addition, we could use one of these sources if we want to use one different from CJR (the currently proposed secondary source). ^Falling_Gravity 03:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Put all that stuff in GG's article to show how he's devolved from his long-ago acclaimed muckraking to the empty current day ad hominem rants. This article is about ASD, a public service organization. Discussions of its mission and methods are germane, as would be discussions of the conduct of its principals in the course of executing ASD's work. Look at how we treat articles about other similar organizations. We don't say that the vice-president of the Dog Rescue Society is a hideous turtle-lover and that she's teamed up with a former cat owner. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity has pointed out that multiple reliable sources discuss Glenn Greenwald's article. I don't see a response to that in your post. All I see is a bunch of ad hominem attacks on Greenwald himself, which are irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to respond to the overwhelming negative reaction here and to the many editors who have detailed the reasons that this is not good article content. An evaluation of the significance of the opinion depends on the opinee, and sorry to tell you but negative outcomes are not attacks -- just like negative reactions to your attempts to add bad content are not attacks on you or anyone else. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

An evaluation of the significance of the opinion depends on the opinee: Based on whose judgment of the "opinee"? Yours? Your own opinion of Greenwald does not trump the secondary sources, which as FallingGravity has shown above, have covered Greenwald's article on the ASD. A number of editors raised legitimate questions about whether there was enough secondary sourcing to justify covering Greenwald's article, but FallingGravity has addressed those concerns. Saying that Greenwald has "devolved" or that he only "rants" (both your own personal opinions) has no bearing on whether to mention his article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Get that chip off your shoulder and try to talk substance -- all these editors trying to help you understand, and not the slightest improvement in your attitude or approach. If you have something new to say, somebody may respond. I doubt any of us is again going to respond to the same old complaints. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, our personal opinions of Glenn Greenwald are irrelevant here. For example, I personally don't agree with how GG tried to minimize new developments in the Russia story, and I personally agree more with the Politico article praising the group for its bipartisanship. However, I know quite a few people who are uncomfortable with prominent Democrats teaming up with some "neo-conservatives" like Bill Kristol, and who agree more with GG on this issue. It's not whether I'm right or they're wrong, it's that we can recognize and respect the existence of differing view points. ^Falling_Gravity 00:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do all criticisms fo the ASD originate from Glen? Does anyone critise GG for his comments? Glen's accusations need some balance and just putting out his words give no context. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's a common problem. Nobody takes GG seriously enough to do any detailed critique of his recent behavior. That's only more evidence that his rants are UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

New York Magazine recently published an article doing a detailed critique of his recent behavior. Using your logic, that's only more evidence that his "rants" are DUE. ^Falling_Gravity 05:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the significant coverage of Glenn Greenwald's Intercept article (as you can see from the above table), The Nation and Rolling Stone have published articles that are highly critical of Hamilton 68 and the ASD: "Our Russia Fixation Is Devolving Into an Assault on Political Discourse" by James Carden, The Nation and "Trump Is a Dangerous Idiot. So Why Are We Pushing Him Toward War?" by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone. There has been enough critical coverage of the ASD, both for the political alliance that formed it and for its implications for speech, that WP:DUE requires some mention of these critical views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Taibbi has already been addressed. We're not using him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You've said you don't want Taibbi's views cited here. That doesn't mean his views will not be included, because Wikipedia works on consensus. Weighing against your opinion of Taibbi are the facts that his article was published in Rolling Stone, that similar views have been published in The Nation, The Intercept and The Washington Post, and that similar criticisms (those written by Greenwald) have been discussed in Columbia Journalism Review, The Atlantic and Politico. It's not so simple as a definitive "We're not using him." -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Except that we're not. SPECIFICO talk 09:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's to be determined by consensus, though we should keep in mind this particular RfC isn't specifically about including Matt Taibbi's article, which hasn't gotten nearly as much secondary coverage as Glenn Greenwald's, as evidenced by the listed sources. ^Falling_Gravity 16:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why we're not.

Anyway talkpage consensus doesn't trump policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• This RfC expired before being closed. How does one request a closure? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've left a note on WP:ANRFC. ^Falling_Gravity 16:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Bookmarked. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This RFC should have been closed by now, it is almost 6 weeks old. Why was this RFC left open? Can an admin please answer that question?

Is it possible it wasn't closed because more voted to include this section and certain users here who have a clear political agenda didn't like that? Just a thought...PZP-003 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There often exist backlogs in RfC closures. Please WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You are not an admin. I am asking for a neutral admin to please clarify what is going on here with this RfC. Is it common for there to be "backlogs in RfC closures" as the previous user claimed? Is it common for an RfC to not be closed after 6 weeks? PZP-003 (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There are indeed backlogs, and you can AGF that O3000 is not lying just because he opposes inclusion, and I too am telling the truth (see the other pending discussions at WP:ANRFC for some evidence, if you really need some)

Your proposed conspiracy theory above, doesn't stand up to a attometer of scrutiny either. How would, indeed, partisans against inclusion convince neutral admins and editors who may randomly show up to somehow avoid closing this RfC? Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@PZP-003: I have seen RfCs expire before, it's not unusual. Falling Gravity has requested closure here. I don't know whether all closure requests are handled by an administrator but I'd suggest this one were. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-admins can close. But, I think that would be a poor idea in this case and could be reverted. (non-admin closure) O3000 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Estonian president undue?

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)

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)

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)

Reception

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Dogfarts, this is still going on? Thucydides411, you really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

Thanks, Fish and Karate. Here is my proposed draft of the "Reception" section. I welcome any suggested improvements:

Writing in The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald criticized the group, arguing that it represented a political alliance between neoconservatives and hawkish Democrats. 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. 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.

References

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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:Citation overkill. Finally, I'd suggest placing the sentence about The Atlantic before the one about Politico so we could have a smoother transition from negative, mixed, to positive receptions to fulfill WP:NPOV. ^Falling_Gravity 03:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Support Thucydides411's proposed text, which is well-sourced, neutral and balanced. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• 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)

@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)

• 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. 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. In a Politico article, Susan Glasser praised the group for its bipartisan approach to tracking Russian propaganda.

References

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

((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)

@SPECIFICO: The proposed text cites several perfectly valid sources, among them the Columbia Journalism Review, The Washington Post and The Atlantic. Given that, I simply do not understand where your complaint about a lack of reliable sources comes from. 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)

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)

@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)

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)

(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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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

• 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)

@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)

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

include Artikel 38 description?

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 Artikel 38) discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 16#Artikel 38 X1\ X1\ (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

Expanding Reception section

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

(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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

OK, Thucydides411 or Darouet, can you establish 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

Editing the "reception" section

After a small number of editors endorsed Falling Gravity's proposed, it was inserted in the article on the premise that it represented a consensus of the editors on this page. The small group did not notify the larger number who participated in the RfC and did not favor inclusion of GG at all for various reasons, including UNDUE attention to Greenwald's ad hominem and text that failed verification.

After the text was added, others have collaborated to improve Falling Gravity's text. That text was not endorsed at an RfC, it is not "longstanding stable text" -- it's just like any other recently added WP text that gets improved as new editors join in to make it more closely align with the cited sources and with the topic of the article.

Acoordingly, the indignant claims that it's "disruptive" to revert to the text that represents not only FG's efforts but also other capable editors' improvements is not true.

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)

Also we must remember WP:CCC. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

(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)

US government funded

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.wiki.x.io/wiki/Advocacy_group

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

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

Edit-warring

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 Fish_and_Karate said in their RfC close on this very same subject: "I would also add a note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as much as it does anywhere else on Wikipedia, and personal attacks on Greenwald (or any other living person) are equally as inappropriate as any personal attacks on Wikipedia editors." Your comments about Greenwald in your edit summaries ("Remove fringe Russia-deniers who have been deprecated with the passage of time" [19] and "Greenwald is of no significance" [20]) are WP:BLP violations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You've now removed the same text three times ([21] [22] [23]). The last time, you said "Use talk" in your edit summary ([24]). Yet you haven't attempted to gain any support for your changes here on talk, and you've ignored my request (directly above) that you first seek consensus. Please self-revert and seek consensus. You're trying to remove long-standing text that is both well-sourced and WP:DUE. That requires consensus. Right now, you're just edit-warring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@SPECIFICO: The Columbia Journalism Review, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Politico and Salon all wrote articles discussing Greenwald's views on the Alliance for Securing Democracy, so your claim that "normal mainstream thinkers simply ignore such stuff" is simply incorrect. The fact that Greenwald's comments on the ASD have received this much secondary coverage is the reason why they're DUE. There was indeed consensus for inclusion here, and I don't see consensus here for removal. Long-standing text that was added with consensus should be removed without consensus. Finally, I'll remind you yet again that BLP policy applies on talk pages, and it applies even to journalists you don't like. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

"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, Fish and Karate pointed out in their RfC close that "WP:BLP applies to talk pages as much as it does anywhere else on Wikipedia, and personal attacks on Greenwald (or any other living person) are equally as inappropriate as any personal attacks on Wikipedia editors." Fish+Karate made this statement because of your insults against Greenwald. You're again going after Greenwald in a rather personal manner, which is completely unnecessary and is, again, a violation of WP:BLPTALK. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Edit Request (Avoiding conflict of interest editing)

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)

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

Why replace a quote from a source with a made up quote?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)