Talk:William Binney (intelligence official)

Proposed article name change

I suggest we change the name of this article from the current William Binney (U.S. intelligence official) to William Binney (NSA whistleblower) as Binney left U.S. intelligence in 2001. Unless there is serious objection, that should happen in the next few days. Jusdafax 23:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, jusdafax. wondering why you want to change it ? and why change to NSA whisleblower? I would agree to change the title to "William Binney", ie delete "U.S. intelligence official" since the apposition isnt needed for disambiguation purposes. William Binney being a living person has changed and might still change his functions. Yes he was a U.S. intelligence official, yes, he was whistleblower, but you cant mention both in terms of neutrality. he is likely still an "intelligence community element", even though the agency he founded was hindered and he may be more things in the future.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A non-tendentious solution would be to incorporate Binney's middle initial, thus William E. Binney. The only reason I didn't do that and instead made a redirect was to avoid conflicts and associated cleanup from an article move. I do find the current article name cumbersome and such a scheme does emphasize one aspect of a person's life over others. Evolauxia (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Evolauxia, not sure why you need the middle initial, but having suggested "William Binney", I am ok with William E. Binney of course. -I dont know what you mean by "avoid conflicts and associated cleanup".--Wuerzele (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not call him "U.S. intelligence specialist"? I checked here because I was wondering how 'they' can tolerate that he spills so many beans. People like that are usually silenced one way or the other. At least he would have had his passport cancelled so he couldn't have travelled to the Bundestag in Berlin. I am uncomfortable with this. I also wonder why the CIA needs to pay two spies in Germany when they know everything through electronics. 121.209.56.9 (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No attribute to his name is needed for disambiguation at this time.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with William Binney, there could also be a redirect from William E. Binney, but there is no clear need for disambiguation. FrankP (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC) (comment edited after reviewing WP:TITLE)

Update -- I was going to move the page but in fact there is ambiguity over the name William Binney, there being a William G. Binney and an Edward William Binney, both from the 19th century. I'm still not entirely convinced that (U.S. intelligence official) is correct, as of course Binney is no longer in that role. Suggestions welcome. FrankP (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Fringe" theory

NBC News refers to Binney's theory on DNC leaks as "fringe".[1] That's a term that his Wikipedia page ought to use, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, just stumbled across this article and noticed this absurd editorializing. If the goal was to make the reader question Binney's credibility, I would say that instead this degree of weasel word usage probably did a better job undermining credibility of the article. Here's the analysis directly from a reliable source, try reading it before you jump to reframe it in terms from a third party.[2]129.72.114.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Truthdig.com is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say a publication run by Society of Professional Journalists-award-winner Robert Scheer is certainly more reliable than a network that keeps employed anchors who lie about war heroics. Regardless, this is a primary report put together by Skip Holden of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity with Binney and others' approval. Truthdig and Consortiumnews simply hosted it. Since this has been cited by multiple mainstream organizations, making it "news", I would think the facts can be derived from the primary source.

Yes, you're definitely correct, and snoog. guy is wrong. Seems like he is trying to smear Binney. Further, Chris Hedges is the main journalist at Truthdig: he formerly was the New York Times lead journalist for Middle East affairs, so definitely qualifies as a reliable source for journalism. To claim that MSNBC is 'reliable journalism' is not unlike arguing that Fox News is 'reliable journalism' and is an objective source of news reporting. Utter nonsense from Snooganssnoogans.

Truthdig.com isn't run by the Society of Professional Journalists. It got a few awards from them, then again, Judith Miller won the Pulizer Prize, for blindly repeating Ahmed Chalabi's lies that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction program.

More importantly, however, the point of posting that source was to get you to read it. The facts of internet speed limitations are incontrovertible. It is not possible for the files to have been obtained from the DNC's servers at the speed they were obtained from a trans-Atlantic internet connection. Some contentious standard of "reliable" vs "unreliable" is irrelevant here, the argument soundly debunks the Russian hacking narrative. Calling this a "fringe" theory on Wikipedia is blatant editorializing.129.72.114.31 (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with you, but I'm not a credible source, being just an electrical engineer that specialized in networking that works in Silicon Valley. Hardly have the qualifications of some "journalist"! Interesting times we live in. I like that it's a "fringe theory" that Russia *didn't* hack the DNC, although absolutely no evidence to date has been presented to support this assertion. Got have some excuse keep funding our "defense" contractors at the tune of 700 billion dollars a year, and terrorism just doesn't cut it. Get ready for Cold War 2.0!

Reliably sourced content keeps getting removed

This edit[3] removes text sourced to NBC News, Bloomberg, Business Insider and the Intercept. The text adheres to the language of the reliable sources. There is absolutely no WP:NPOV problems. This is just some typical WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT whitewashing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

More RS that mirror the aforementioned four RS: CNN[4] (calls Binney a "conspiracy theorist") and WaPo[5] (talks about Binney's appearances on Fox to promote his theory). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Two of those sources remained (hell, the intercept piece lays into him). The other was essentially an editorial opinion piece. If you don't like the guy, thats fine, but there are definite WP:NPOV problems when the title of the article is essentially "these guys wear tinfoil hats". All of your edits here are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Your user page seems to suggest you delight in acting this way too. (AbuButterbean)

Please explain why content sourced to six reliable sources (now also CNN and WaPo) should be kept out of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted these removals - the sources are reliable and appropriate weight. For a public figure who makes extraordinary claims, we must reflect the sources that make clear that the claims are extraordinary. Neutrality^talk 01:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

How is " He has appeared on Fox News at least ten times between September 2016 and November 2017 to promote his fringe theory." not a pov/editorial statement? Why does his appearance on Breitbart pertain to the discussion at hand? The source is a link to an NBC piece, and not even to the Brietbart article. Why does it matter who he voted for? What relevance does it have to the topic? These are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT edits on the part of Snooganssnoogans.

Wikipedia covers what reliable sources report. The answer to all your questions is "because that's what RS find noteworthy about him". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place to present facts, not to regurgitate editorializing from other sources (unless in the context of proper attribution). The only acceptable way to mention the phrase "fringe theory" is in the manner of "NBC characterized it as a 'fringe theory'."129.72.112.119 (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed this discussion objectively. This is a correct characterization and very appropriate: "NBC characterized it as a 'fringe theory'. Reliable sources are usually, obviously and demonstrably false, then after some 'lag period,' catch up to reality. As such, those that 'believe' the RS and MSM (such as SnoosSnoos) will exhibit almost illogical behavior when dealing with these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.152.191 (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Infowars and the House Committee memo

Hello, I'm offering to help mediate if that would help. I'm not directly involved in the subject of this page -- I'm outside the USA, with enough awareness of the topic to know about aspects of the Russia investigation, the business about the memo, and what Infowars is, but I'm not an expert on Binney or some of the other detailed matters. We have a saying here in Britain (is it the same for you?), "I don't have a dog in this fight". So I'd ask the 'warring' parties to explain what they want to see in the article, and why, based on sourced references. Please indent your comments (with colons :) and sign them afterwards (using tildes ~) (talk page help). Thanks, FrankP (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

THANK YOU sir. Much respect. Infowars is a news source. They had Binney on the show. That date needs a citation. They confirm the date of appearance themselves. ~pantspantsly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantspantsly (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, good, thanks for your answer. So, as the article stands (today) it says, "January 23rd 2018, William Binney was a guest on the Infowars news program" and you'd like to keep this in? It should then go on that he said X Y and Z, which is significant because of this and that (explanation) and a link to video (or transcript I guess) of his appearance. Is that about right? FrankP (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes pretty much, not exactly everything you said but yes you are right. This last revert was a removal of a source (considered reliable) on the date of an event, which fits "5" points of reliability in this context. That source was removed without reason and the commit message did not reference this decision. In general, the section was added, IMHO, flippantly, and had some words (claims) that were not only not supported by the cited sources, but whos words and concepts were entirely absent from the sourced articles. After some reverts, the source was changed. So I continued to add detail based on that (secondary) source. There are a couple more add-then-cuts that I felt were relevant. We can discuss those events further. THANK YOU AGAIN for your TIME!! ~pantspantsly

Hello FrankP. Read the section as is now--it is poorly written, poorly titled. It is confusing and/or misleading. By mentioning a memo in the first paragraph, and then mentioning "so-called Nunes memo" in the third paragraph, the reader might think that two different memos are being discussed. Same for mentioning the release two different times. My last edit simply tried to get rid of this misleading redundancy, and to change the Infowars.com sourcing since is not considered a legit source for anything. But Mr Pants for some reason is in love with his version. At the very least, the memo should be identified as the "Nunes memo" at the beginning and then referred to the same way throughout the section. And the title is ridiculously long. Again, check out my last version, it is clear and balanced. Localemediamonitor (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I agree it's confusingly worded, but let's see if we can agree on the factual basis for the section first before getting into the detail of how to phrase it. Is it true that: (1) Binney appeared on Infowars; (2) He claimed to be releasing the Nunes memo, at that time still unreleased; (3) When the true memo came out later, it could be seen that Binney had not in fact released the Nunes memo. FrankP (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Frank. To answer your question: As you can see from the links in the section, (1) and (2) are factual. As for (3), no, in fact it was apparent to all almost immediately that the memo presented on Infowars program was not the Nunes Memo, as it was claimed to be at the beginning of the program. You can also see that from the links in the section. Thanks for weighing in and let me know if you have more questions.Localemediamonitor (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, yes thanks for that, so it wasn't convincing to most people even at the time, understood. Is there any dispute about this factual basis? I'm not sure I see why it should be difficult to draft this short section. The Nunes memo should be named as such, perhaps with a short in-article explanation but it has its own page, we should just link to that. And surely Infowars has to be a source for itself because the incident being described took place on the channel. Am I saying anything controversial? FrankP (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no dispute to that. Again, just read the articles at the links. In fact by the end of the program, Infowars' Alex Jones was realizing that the memo they had was publicly available and therefore was not the Nunes Memo. Yes, Nunes Memo should just be in double brackets and that would be enough, besides some basic explanation. Really, just look at my last edit, you will see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Binney_%28U.S._intelligence_official%29&type=revision&diff=826932395&oldid=826883748 ....Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'm minded to re-draft the section based on these three points of fact, and also on the current and previous wording but keeping it as a barebones description, and then see if anyone wants to take it forward with extra detail. Or maybe it's just enough as a short section. I mean, it seems like a relatively straightforward incident. FrankP (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have redrafted the section as a suggested way forward, taking note of what both of you have said. My text could almost certainly be improved -- as I pointed out, I am not the topic expert here by any means. But I tried to understand what the facts were and presented them in a logical order, using the source links which had been used in previous versions of the article. I hope you think it makes sense now. If I have got it mostly right, this could a basis to build on, and of course if anyone thinks there should be changes., go ahead and improve the article further. Thanks for your input. FrankP (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well written. Give yourself more credit! I think the concise nature, the scope of the event, and sourcing, have all improved great. Thank you for your time on the issue. thanked and supported. Love. ~ pantspantsly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantspantsly (talk • contribs) 01:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Good job, Frank. Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Coool, glad to be of help. You guys be nice to each other all right? :) FrankP (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

will do, thank you again -pantspantsly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantspantsly (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)