Talk:Michael Flynn

no mention of his al Jazeera appearance?

he went on al Jazeera and said that the us support to isis was a "willful decision", surely that is something worth mentioning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80A9:DA20:4DAC:71DE:C4E8:E790 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Additional sources here [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Involvement with Bradley Manning incarceration

There has been a bit of press coverage over the last day or so regarding Bradley Manning's defense teams claim that it was Flynn that gave the orders that Manning was to be kept on POI status. I hereby suggest that this be added to the article. Snertking (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

well, it appears that the press messed that up. It was in fact Maj. General George Flynn, not Michael Flynn. 107.3.62.19 (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

news article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-the-entire-national-security-establishment-has-rejected-trumpexcept-for-this-man/2016/08/15/d5072d96-5e4b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html Cantab1985 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

The Trump Campaign sub-section is top-heavy with undue weight that is negatively based. I'm proposing the negative content be pared down considerably. We need to add content in regard to his involvement in the campaign that is positive, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"undue weight" does not mean that an an article has more "negatively based" content than it has "positive" content. It means that an article has too much "minority viewpoint", regardless of whether that viewpoint's content is negative or positive. The appropriate weight, as per Wikipedia policy, is for the article's content to be accurate, representative, from widely held views or widely supported aspects. And very specifically: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." DocRuby (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nearly 24K edits in, I'm well aware of what undue weight is, DocRuby. I'm also aware that WP:COMMONSENSE is a great non-rule in Wikipedia. Both are applicable in regard to the Trump Campaign subsection along with WP:POVPUSH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you're well aware of what undue weight is, why are you asking for a change to the article because of undue weight that is not justified by the undue weight policy? Do you have a different argument for changing the content that is not because of undue weight? Can you justify your suggestion that the article currently has problems with "the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas" as per WP:POVPUSH? DocRuby (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in sparring with you. Especially since you are coming on so aggressively and in a manner that mimics a battleground mentality and approach. The subsection is all negative and needs to be balanced out so that the subject of it - "Trump campaign" - also reflects the non-negative side of reliably sourced, verifiable content appropriate for inclusion there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "sparring" with you. You proposed a change with a justification. I didn't think that the justification supported your requested change, and said so clearly and politely. You replied to I said without clarifying, so I asked you to clarify. You still haven't given a justification for adding content that's "non-negative" other than an assertion that you think it should have more content that's positive. I also notice that you just deleted some of the factual content in that section without discussion, even though all you've proposed was adding "non-negative" content not deleting negative content. Your justification of "undue weight" does not support your proposal, and you haven't given an alternate justification though my request for one was reasonable. Really your side of this discussion looks to me like a "battleground approach", very aggressive, sarcastic and falsely accusatory, and without taking my requests for a clear justification at simple face value. All I've done is ask you for clarification when your justifications didn't clearly support your proposal. Your proposal might have some merit, but your reasons for it don't support it, so I don't really understand what your purpose is in discussing it here. DocRuby (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The changes I've made to the subsection should speak for themselves in the way of "justification". Especially now that the section is balanced out and that which was POV and not in line with the attached references has been culled and/or reworded. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Where did you get the strange idea that the goal for a WP page is to present a perfect balance of positive and negative information? Your recent edits have simply eliminated relevant info that helps readers assess Flynn's activities in support of Trump's campaign. Who gains by preventing its inclusion? What is the need to exclude facts such as Flynn's encouragement of chants to lock up Trump's rival for office? Or that he says killing the families of terrorist suspects is a "political decision"? If that reflects negatively on Flynn, whose fault is that--Flynn, or those who documented his public statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.233 (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The content you keep reading is not neutral in tone nor is it reflective of the sources attached to it. Please discontinue edit warring over this POV content taken out of context. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who is edit warring. Rather than discuss the matter here and reaching consensus with other editors, you unilaterally keep deleting the fully documented factual information about and statements by Flynn. Deleting info you personally prefer to exclude is engaging in POV unless you can supply a cogent reason for deleting each thing. It is striking that (a) you talk about adding more positive info about Flynn but then engage in deleting info; (b) you added seemingly banal comments Flynn made in response to banal "USA" chants from Trump supporters, but repeatedly insist on excluding Flynn's response to some very provocative chants. How is such interference in this page not an expression of POV? ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.199 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The content you keep adding is POV in nature, it's POV in presentation. It does not belong in the article. I guess AN3 is the next stop since you insist on edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the latest edits. The wording is POV and the content seems to be undue. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Explain how it is POV to mention the controversy of Flynn's anti-semitic tweet with his explanation for it? Or to fully quote what the source says about his attitude toward killing the families of suspected terrorists? How is it POV to mention how Flynn responded to controversial chants during his campaign speech (especially given that WV thinks Flynn's response to banal chants merits inclusion)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.61 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Not hostile to Russia?

The "Association With Russia" section should be deleted. It looks like a smear attempt to make him seem like some kind of Russian agent. The following people have regularly been on the RT channel, the "a Kremlin-aligned English-language news outlet": Stephen Hawking, Larry King, Ed Shultz, Nigel Farange, Bernie Sanders - none of them are hinted at being Putin agents on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.228.120 (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversial but factual and relevant behavior properly cited is not subject to deletion. If you have evidence you cite that explains Flynn's behavior to clarify what you are inferring from the article then you should include it. DocRuby (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Association with Russia" section is pure political agenda

The content of the "Association With Russia" section may be factual and uncontroversial, but that is not the only criteria for including information in a biographical article. It is entirely devoid of newsworthiness and is rife with a political agenda grounded in a vulgar xenophobia toward Russians. Can anyone can explain how this section lends any valuable insight about Flynn, and whether this insight deserves an entire section of the article plus a photo?

Let's examine the factual information provided by this section and whether it is reasonable to entitle it "Association With Russia":

• One newspaper article described Flynn as "not hostile toward Russia". Is "lack of hostility" a synonym for "association"? Is one's hostility toward Russia a common feature of Wikipedia biographies? Why just Russia? Is he hostile toward Cambodia?
• Regular appearances on RT. Do Wikipedia biographies usually mention whenever someone has appeared on RT but not other networks? Why is RT singled out when Flynn is regularly on US networks as well? Obama has been on Fox News a few times, so is he a Murdoch associate?
• RT is a media outlet funded by Russia. RT is also funded by advertisers. Why is RT treated differently than PBS or BBC, which are partially funded by US and UK governments (respectively) and by advertisers ("underwriters" as PBS calls them) just like RT is. World leaders are interviewed on PBS and BBC, but they are not characterized as having "associations" with US/UK because of such interviews.
• Dinner with Putin at RT Gala. Is Flynn also associated with the countries of the other guests seated at the table? How does his attendance of this gala help the reader understand Flynn's life? Why is it so important that it deserves to gobble bandwidth with a hilariously bad photo of an out of focus Flynn scratching his ear?

Those are all of the facts in the entire section entitled "Association with Russia." While "association" is a nice open-ended weasel-word that is perfect for injecting subtext and promoting agendas, it isn't completely meaningless and its use here is flat out counterfactual. The top two definitions Google provides are representative:

Association: 1.) a group of people organized for a joint purpose. 2.) a connection or cooperative link between people or organizations

The definitions and the facts speak for themselves. If Flynn and Russia share a joint purpose, cite it. If the facts provided are covered by definition 2, absurdity results. Everyone on TV and everyone at dinner parties is associated with everyone else. A truthful title for the section would expose exactly how newsworthy the facts are: "Once Ate Dinner with Putin" or "Appeared on RT Programs". The bottom line is that implication has no place in any encyclopedia, period. Implications made due to carelessness make the article less valuable; implications made to promote a political agenda damage the credibility of the entire encyclopedia. I'm changing the title of the section to something that is not counterfactual, although I think deleting it makes more sense because it's a bizarre tangent in the article for anyone unaware of the Clinton campaign's attempts to link Trump to Russia (and the implicit xenophobic corollary that Russians are bad per se). Any defense of this section, must explicitly state why trivial connections with Russia matter more than trivial connections with other countries.BTercero (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Source of "fiery" quote

Flynn delivered a speech at the 2016 Republican Conventioned that was described as "fiery" by a newspaper. But which? In one place in the article, the quote is attributed to the New York Times but in another it's attributed to the Los Angeles Times. The LA Times reference is footnoted so it appears to be the valid source. The attribution to the NY Times should be changed to the LA Times. Any comments before I change it? ROsattin (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Content removed by IP numbers claiming "bias" and "no source"

Putting this content here so that I don't forget about it. It's impossible to edit this page until the protection level is increased:

Flynn sat in on classified national security briefings with then-candidate Trump at the same time that Flynn was working for foreign clients, which raises ethical concerns and conflicts of interest.

According to the New York Times, Flynn has a loose relationship with facts, and often makes statements that "have... crossed the line into outright Islamophobia." According to CNN, Flynn "regularly shares conspiracy theories, expletive-filled posts, and racially insensitive sentiments on Twitter and Facebook."

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone just removed nearly his entire post-retirement career. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Another IP editor has since restored that section. - Regarding the CNN quote, it's actually about Flynn's son Michael G. Flynn, not himself. In general, I agree that blanket deletions of content that is based on citations of reliable sources need better justifications than unspecified claims of bias. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don´t understand how you can have such low standards as to the sources of sources: the NY Times comes up with "Flynn Facts" and provides no source whatsoever, same for most of the narrative they´re crafting - and you won´t find a word about it in any other news outlet not quoting the NY Times. How is that reputable? But it´s in here anyway and does its job as denounciation. That´s ridiculous. --2A02:8108:85C0:803:5C29:4C5D:6E9C:3625 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Politico too analysed his tweets, with source - resulting in 16 "dubious factoids". 83.101.67.8 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Should he be labeled as a Scotch-Irish American?

The article says his family is from Ulster. Pc Retro (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

From line 4 'Retirement' it currentl"y reads: According to the New York Times, Flynn exhibited a loose relationship with facts, leading his subordinates to refer to Flynn's repeated dubious assertions as "Flynn facts".[31]" It is a direct quote from an opinion (not news) piece and should be properly marked as such. DDBRIGHT (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Why the inflammatory partial quotes?

Please put these quotes in context with the full quote and surrounding context, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.28.250 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election section of the article, the quote "calling for her to withdraw from the raace." has a misspelling of "race". 2A02:C7D:2A30:EA00:2D61:8A60:FD03:DA53 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Done KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)