Talk:Richard Grenell

Undisclosed paid editing

This article was extensively edited by Plot Spoiler who appears was an undisclosed paid editor. Please review the content before removing the {{UPE}} tag. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Remarks by Grenell

An account which was created today and which appears familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to both cite policy and link to it correctly removed crucial context to remarks made by Grenell.[1] I subsequently restored it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

NordStream2

It is not quite right to say that the Trump administration has been fighting NordStream2 - without saying that NordStream2 has been fought by the US as soon as it emerged as an idea. The article on NordStream says that the additional pipeline idea became public in 2011. The US has opposed the idea from the word go, obviously, because they want to get these gas sales. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:15D3:AA82:6BD5:3073 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment

A couple of questions have come up:

• Is a ranking-status member of the cabinet the samething as a member of the cabinet?
• Is a acting ranking member of the cabinet (unconfirmed by the senate) a official member of the cabinet? Datamaster1 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

When his name was announced as DNI, I put into the article “He would be the first openly gay Cabinet member.[47]” User:Datamaster1 removed it saying that “he is not a member of the cabinet. He may hold cabinet-rank status but that is not the same thing”. Most reliable sources [2][3][4][5][6] have said he is the “first openly gay cabinet member”; one even said "cabinet secretary”. In an abundance of caution, when I restored it I said "He is the first openly gay person to serve in a cabinet-level position." What do others think about this? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that just because one news source says something like "cabinet secretary" does not make it accurate. Furthermore, I think you have to take multiple things into consideration. 1) He is not a member of the cabinet. 2) He is not a confirmed member of the cabinet-ranking staff. Just my 2 cents but I'd love to hear what others have to say. I want to thank User:MelanieN for being so kind because even though we disagree you have been respectful and communicated with me on this matter and I am grateful for that. Datamaster1 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you think about the wording "serve in a cabinet-level position"? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m still not a fan as he is not a member of the cabinet nor a confirmed DNI. Datamaster1 (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I support the present wording: Grenell is the first openly gay person to serve in a cabinet-level position. First, with The Gray Lady's standard abundance of caution, The New York Times reports that he is "apparently the first openly gay cabinet member." Typically throwing caution to the wind, Fox News calls him "the first openly gay Cabinet member in history." To me, this establishes beyond dispute that he is both openly gay and a groundbreaker. Second, Wikipedia itself lists Director of National Intelligence among the Cabinet of the United States. To me, this establishes beyond dispute that the position Grenell has been designated to temporarily fill is cabinet-level. Slam dunk. Why are we even discussing this? NedFausa (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa Your statement "Wikipedia itself lists Director of National Intelligence among the Cabinet of the United States" is false Wikipedia lists him as Cabinet-level which is very different and I encourage you to go relook at the page. Also, please note he is only 1 of 3 acting members of the cabinet. He is not a confirmed member of the cabinet. He is simply acting in a role. Datamaster1 (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Datamaster1: I Wikilinked Cabinet of the United States, not Director of National Intelligence. Here is a more specific Wikilink to that same page, listing Director of National Intelligence in the Office column. The offices shown are those of the Cabinet of the United States. NedFausa (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Yes you did but you failed to differentiate the different sections of the article. If you look at the article it clearly states they are not members but ranking members. Their participation can be revoked at any time. They are not members of the cabinet but rather members to participate in cabinet activities. I would encourage you to look at the difference and why they're not included in the list of secretaries. Your statement saying they are the offices of the cabinet is false even the article lists them differently. Go look again. Datamaster1 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I would be okay with “He would be the first openly gay acting ranking-member of the cabinet.[47]” or some language that includes both acting and ranking member as not to confuse being confirmed by the Senate and also not being a member of the cabinet. Datamaster1 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Datamaster1: In its lede, Wikipedia's Director of National Intelligence article identifies the DNI as a United States government Cabinet-level official. If you are seriously contending that the office of DNI is not part of the Cabinet of the United States, I leave you to argue that arcane point with someone else. NedFausa (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Cabinet-level being the keyword... not simply cabinet and it is important to not that to make the statement accurate. Datamaster1 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN I urge you to not muddle the language as Datamaster1 suggests. You hit upon the perfect turn of phrase—to serve in a cabinet-level position. Please keep it as is. NedFausa (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Datamaster, the phrase "ranking-member of the cabinet" is not a term I have ever heard anywhere but here. It is a phrase, and a description, that you invented. But we rely on what Reliable Sources say, and Reliable Sources are unanimous that he is serving in a cabinet-level position. He is "acting," because he has not been confirmed by the senate, but he is filling a cabinet level position and is the first openly gay person to do so. There really isn't anything more to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN I disagree with your assessment and I believe that it warrants outside commenting from the community. I have attempted to do this multiple times and you keep reverting my edits so if you're not going to allow an Rfc then we can proceed to arbitration. The idea is to get a general consensus and you're not allowing that to happen. Datamaster1 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Amazing @Datamaster1:. You only started editing Wikipedia yesterday & immediately, you know how to contact other editors, how to create an Rfc, how to file an Arbcom request. Truly impressive. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have done a lot of reading. But this is not the place for insinuations about me if you have something to say please take it to my talk page. Datamaster1 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with NedFausa. I think Grenell is the first openly gay person to serve in a cabinet-level position is great phrasing and should be kept. I do think it is important to distinguish cabinet-rank positions from cabinet positions. Among other differences, cabinet-rank positions are not in the presidential line of succession for example. MarginalCost (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Datamaster1: BTW I would not object if you now want to make this discussion into an RfC. I removed the RfC tag at first because of WP:RFCBEFORE: We are supposed to start by discussing at the talk page, not jump immediately to RfC. Now that we have had some initial discussion and have defined the issues, if you wish to get additional input via an RfC that is OK with me. Don't start a new discussion; just add the RfC tag, and place "RfC:" at the beginning of the title (or your preferred title) of this discussion. And be sure that your opening paragraph defines exactly what you are asking, since that paragraph will appear as the issue that needs to be discussed. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies for examples. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN I appreciate that. I am sorry to all I promise I just want things to be accurate and I don't mean to be difficult. I don't want to come off rude. I felt attacked by the comments accusing me of being a sock and I have no objections to someone checking that out as I have nothing to hide. It just upset me a bit especially given the personal accusations being made on the talk page. Thank you for being so kind. Datamaster1 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN has this right at its core. If we want to make emphasis on his non-permanent status (de rigueur in this administration), it could read: "He is the first openly gay person to serve in a cabinet-level position, albeit in an acting capacity." This is a lot over relatively nothing and opening the article back to editing (at least bringing it down to semi-protected) should happen quickly. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any need to add that. Does it almost imply that there have been, or will be, others who serve in a non-acting capacity? The Reliable Sources who point out his "first" status don't qualify it with "first acting". For that matter they don't qualify it with any other language; they just refer to him as a cabinet member (one even said "cabinet secretary" which is just plain wrong). But if "cabinet-level" rather than "cabinet member" is preferred by folks here, I don't have any problem with that wording. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN After giving this some thought I am withdrawing my objections assuming we leave it the way it is now. I'm not sure how I missed the fact that the entire section is titled "acting" director. My apologies. I have removed the Rfc. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Just so that others don't get as confused as I was: Mr. Awesome, PhD is Datamaster1, just using a different signature. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN alt Oh yes sorry I recently updated! Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN alt MelanieN - I renew my objections... since the comment "and the highest-ranking openly gay official in U.S. government history" has been added. He is not a ranking member of anything. He is not in the line of succession he would never have the power of the executive branch. The comment is misleading and stems from Log Cabin Republicans which is clearly a biased source. See NBC coverage. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/openly-gay-u-s-ambassador-germany-makes-republican-history-n869641 In the meantime, I have reverted pending consensus. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 February 2020

In the subsection Acting director of national intelligence please remove the argumentative phrase Contrary to the White House press release, which violates WP:NPOV. The press release states that Grenell "has years of experience working with our Intelligence Community in a number of additional positions, including as Special Envoy for Serbia-Kosovo Negotiations and as United States spokesman to the United Nations." It is not up to one Wikipedia editor to contradict this statement of fact. NedFausa (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Request Denial The press release and article contradict each other. One says he does have experience in intelligence and one says he does not. That is important to note. Datamaster1 (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done - the source used for this doesn't give a definitive answer to the question of whether he has experience, it simply quotes "critics", including a tweet by a senator, as having claimed that. Since the sources don't themselves say whether he has intelligence experience, we shouldn't either, in Wikipedia's voice. I've reworded so that it just mentions both claims.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru Thank you, I appreciate the way you included both. Datamaster1 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Since when have White House press releases from the Trump WH become RS? They are no better, and sometimes worse, than RT and Breitbart. We must base all of our content on RS. Notability (Trump and the WH are obviously notable) does not confer reliability, and Trump is a remarkably notable source of bottomless misinformation and propaganda. To include the WH POV, we must do it by citing independent RS which mention the WH POV, just as we are supposed to do when documenting misinformation found in other unreliable sources. We must not use the unreliable source as our reference. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • BullRangifer, fair point. Given that the WH press office is the originator of the term "alternative facts", we should probably deprecate it until it changes hands. Guy (help!) 17:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree. Let's go to WP:RS/P. I subscribe to myriad RS, as well as the WH newsletter (not RS), and it's no better than the worst unreliable sources. It is propaganda straight from the source. I sometimes wonder () if it's dictated straight from Putin's press officer. We know that Trump shares highly classified info with Putin, and that he obeys Putin, including choice of Secretary of State, so why not? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

background in intelligence matters

Amakuru, I disagree with the edit saying the White House claims he has intel experience, but people such as a Democrat disagree. Despite the WH claim, multiple reliable sources (I can OVERCITE them) say he does not have an intel background. Specifically citing Warner makes it sound like it's just a partisan complaint. It isn't. soibangla (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Independent RS get more weight than WH propaganda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer So question, why is a Democratic Congressman more reputable than the White House? All the mainstream media sources cite him. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

soibangla To be clear each media source cited cites Democrats which is the same on the other end of citing the WH. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Awesome, PhD, there is a difference between citing opinions, and everyone has them (and we attribute them), and citing a source that is so notoriously deceptive that we have a whole article devoted to the subject: "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump". When nearly every tweet and statement contains enough deception and lies that they are actually tallied, fact-checked, and published by myriad RS, "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward." -- David Zurawik. That is the wisest course to follow. Trump's statements are not unreliable "because he says it," but because so much of what he says is provably counterfactual.

Left- or right-wing, we don't care. It is factuality that determines whether a source is reliable or unreliable, and Trump fails miserably.

Note that we still cite Trump all the time, but only because he's so notable that actual RS do quote him, so we use those RS. We don't consider his tweets to be RS for statements of fact, nor his other statements. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward." That is not good faith. 47.44.192.245 (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Say something like, "There has been a debate on if Grenell has the necessary background in intelligence or if his appointment is part of a politicization of the Intelligence Community" linking to reliable secondary sources Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

We should not give the impression that only Democrats are pointing out his lack of experience. Sources are pointing it out in their own voice - "Grenell's lack of intelligence-related experience" - or citing the fact that he has no background in intelligence to “critics” - "critics have noted that he has no background in intelligence" - or “current and former officials” - "Current and former officials questioned Grenell’s qualifications to lead the intelligence agencies". We need to say something that shows the weight of reporting, not just "the White House said this and a Democrat said that." However, I think "politicization of the intelligence community" is too POV. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

add Lev Parnas & Dmytro Firtash item

Lev Parnas told The Daily Beast that he was told to ask Grenell for advance notice if the DoJ were to move to extradite indicted Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash, per example (The DB). X1\ (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 February 2020: on start dates and successors

I request that the "status = Designate" and "succeeding = Joseph Maguire" both be removed from the infobox on Mr. Grenell; likewise, pursuant to the following New York Times article, I also request that Mr. Grenell's term_start date be changed to today, February 21, 2020.[7] The article, in short, states that Admiral Maguire resigned earlier today; and, as such, Mr. Grenell has become the acting Director of National Intelligence.

Thank you! — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There have been so many developments - Maguire out, Grenell in, second-in-command fired, a non-intelligence-community partisan named as a top aide - all of which would require reference citations - that it seems like too much new info to be adding to a locked article. This kind of material needs to be debated and vetted by the community. Maybe somebody should request the locking administrator to unlock the page, since the story is developing so fast? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Kubicki

Wolfgang Kubicki is just listed here as deputy chairman of the FDP, but he is also vicepresident of the bundestag, a highranking office, which should be named here Norschweden (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the emphasis that the cited source gave it - that he was a high ranking member of the opposition party - so I'm thinking that's enough identifaction for this one quote. People can click on his name for further information. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation error

"John F. Kennedy School of Government <" should be changed to "John F. Kennedy School of Government.<" despite the fact I cannot actually do this while the page is under full protection. 08:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)