Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

White House misused Iraq intelligence: ex-official

PAUL R. PILLAR

Paul R. Pillar was appointed National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia in October 2000 upon returning to the Intelligence Community from the Brookings Institution, where he was a Federal Executive Fellow.

He joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1977 and has served in a variety of analytical and managerial positions, including as chief of analytic units covering portions of the Near East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. He previously served in the National Intelligence Center (NIC) as one of the original members of its Analytic Group.

He has been Executive Assistant to CIA's Deputy Director for Intelligence and Executive Assistant to DCI William Webster. He headed the Assessments and Information Group of the DCI Counterterrorist Center and from 1997 to 1999 was deputy chief of the center.

Pillar is a retired officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and served on active duty in 1971-1973, including a tour of duty in Vietnam.

Pillar received an A.B. summa cum laude from Dartmouth College, a B.Phil. from Oxford University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Princeton University. He is the author of books on peace negotiations and counterterrorist policy. His most recent work, Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy, was published by the Brookings Institution Press in February 2001

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060210/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Robert Grenier

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036182,00.html

Copyright violation

Possible copyright violation process does not seem to have been followed, as aricle is not listed at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems as the message says it should be. Also the sections

• February 2003 Memo
• Former members
• See also
• External links

are not from the web page in question, and therefore should not be included in a possible copyright violation discussion. Finally, the web page in question allows the text to be used under GFDL. Simon12 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Correspondence/memos

I removed the sections on correspondence and memos. They fall under WP:NOT (collection of external links), and are arguably a WP:NPOV violation. The information is easily available on the link in the external web site section.Simon12 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Article up for AfD

David MacMichael one of the Veterans is up for deletion. 68.91.252.148 18:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the above from the talk page. It is a legitimate notice that has relevance to anyone involved in editing this article. And in general it is inappropriate to remove material from the talk page, even if you disagree with it. It is in poor form to delete comments made by others just because you don't agree with them or whatever. csloat 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." Explain to me how this is discussing a change to the VIPS article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the MacMichael page is deleted (or the Ray McGovern page), we will have to change this page to accommodate those deletions. Besides, that page you cite does not say it is ok to remove things you feel are not relevant if someone else feels they are relevant. Please don't do it again; thanks. csloat 17:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I removed the comment is that this anon had been doing a ton of canvassing. Although I doubt that the deletion of MacMichael (which won't happen because I just withdrew the nomination) would have changed this page that much, I'm not going to keep removing the message. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,81148,00.html http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/11/is_max_boot_usi.html www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450548/posts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazon (talk • contribs)

Request for comments on Open Letter to Angela Merkel

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.

---

There has been an edit war about the inclusion of the information about the open letter to Angela Merkel on this page and at Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014, that's why I thought it's probably best to get previously uninvolved users here who don't already have bad feelings as I see here given various reports to administrators and arbitration on Eastern Ukrainian issues. Galant Khan (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation - there has been an edit war suggests that you have acted in good faith and attempted some semblance of WP:BRD trying to push through new content. Not only is there absolutely no evidence of discussion on this talk page or the other page you've been trying to push the same content through, you have actually demonstrated that you are trying to game the system by starting exactly the same RfC there.

Not only are your sources WP:BIASed and lacking in WP:INTEXT attribution as the requirement for such sources, there is absolutely nothing neutral about creating a WP:COATRACK. Do you seriously expect other editors to believe that "...

likening it to the case for war in Iraq, and suggested the claims of Russian invasion were a cover for a series of successes by the rebels." is not WP:WEASEL and WP:EDITORIALIZING? I don't think it could be any more clear that you are leading the readers by their noses to draw a conclusion. For the moment, until other editors chime in, I am removing that section of your content as WP:COATRACK.

Your content verbatim:

In response to the war in Ukraine and allegations from the U.S. and NATO of a Russian invasion in support of rebel forces, VIPS released a memorandum for German Chancellor Angela Merkel in which they urged the Chancellor to be suspicious of U.S. intelligence regarding the alleged invasion. They stated satellite photos released to the press were not a sufficient basis for the claim of an invasion, likening it to the case for war in Iraq, and suggested the claims of Russian invasion were a cover for a series of successes by the rebels.

References

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The basic issue I have with this info *in this article* is the sources - they're either not reliable or they're primary. You need a secondary source which covers this letter to include info. *On other articles* there's an additional issue, that of WP:UNDUE. In a general level article about a particular topic this letter is just not important enough to discuss. And that's even once the non-reliability of sources issue is addressed. Volunteer Marek  15:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(A page editor here) Omit per WP:WEIGHT until and unless their latest letter gets appropriate mainstream media coverage. I guess I disagree with User:Volunteer Marek about whether the letters carry enough WP:WEIGHT *even for this article*; my opinion is that these sources lack sufficient WP:WEIGHT even for an obscure article about VIPS. So while Marek and I agree on omission, I guess Marek believes it meets WP:WEIGHT but not WP:RS here, while I believe the reverse. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There had been discussion on the talk page of Russian invasion of Ukraine, Irina, you even participated. The content was deleted when the discussion did not favour this, cf. Talk:Russian_Invasion_of_Ukraine_(2014)#Reliable_sources_.28again.29. It was not even me who included the content here and several users added it again when it was deleted. The only reason why I requested comments for both articles was because both are subject to the same question and edit-warring. Both users who gave comments at the other article supported the inclusion of the content. Süddeutsche Zeitung and Stern (magazine) are mainstream media, they were also called reliable by one of the users who entered the discussion at the other article, and if you don't like them it doesn't make them biased. The Nation is a good source, too - they already questioned the weapons of mass destruction claims when nearly all of the US mainstream was still gung-ho. Galant Khan (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Omit - Aside from WP:UNDUE/WP:WEIGHT, my concerns lie with further policy issues surrounding the inclusion of this content on this page: WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Even if a couple of the sources do meet WP:RS, as pointed out by Rolf h nelson, there is little coverage and, thereby, for the purposes of this article, inclusion here at this point in time smacks of jumping the gun (and Wikipedia does not run ahead of the ball) before there has been enough time for the benefit of hindsight. Nor is Wikipedia is a a crystal ball. Also, considering the length of the article (which stood at two brief, neutral paragraphs about past events, not ongoing current affairs), I can only understand the entry as being blatant WP:COATRACK considering that the identical content is being pushed on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) article. Resultantly, on reflection, my position is omission on the grounds of WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Include The fact the editors looking to omit it happen to be of a certain POV on the specific entry is a pretty significant insight into the reasoning for their opposition. As it stands, the mention in RIA Novosti on its own warrants inclusion. Being state-owned media does not make it inherently unreliable, especially if we are only looking to determine whether the content is worthy of inclusion. Several major American outlets publishing the memo also points to it being worthy of inclusion. Additionally, we have several significant German media articles commenting on it critically. This article is about the group itself and so the inclusion of memos that have received significant media attention is more than warranted. I would personally oppose including this information anywhere else as it is not clear their view is noteworthy enough to warrant mention in any of the relevant articles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact the editors looking to omit it happen to be of a certain POV - first, that's nonsense. Second, that's about the worst kind of reasoning to support or oppose something. It's directly in violation of a policy. You're wanting to "include" simply because you don't like the editors who disagree. That's about as WP:BATTLEGROUND as one can get. This isn't a vote and !votes in such a direct contravention of policy are simply ignored. Volunteer Marek  22:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

RIA is non RS. It is entirely unreliable in its reporting (and not inherently because it is government owned) and has been shown to be in specific articles during the Ukrainian matter. There is no legitimate defence of it as a reliable source of information. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have found most of our so-called reliable media sources to be unreliable on this conflict. RIA Novosti can definitely be considered reliable when it comes to determining whether a certain matter is noteworthy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have found most of our so-called reliable media sources to be unreliable - when you find yourself making statements like that it's a pretty clear indication that you're at the wrong project. If you think that the sources Wikipedia generally regards as reliable are not, then this isn't the place for you. Volunteer Marek  22:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My view that news media are not always as reliable as we act is hardly something that leaves me at odds with Wikipedia. There are editors who don't even think we should use news media and some topic areas specifically recommend against or effectively prohibit using news media, but I digress. My point is that many sources we usually consider reliable have repeatedly made inaccurate or demonstrably false statements regarding this conflict and judging RIA Novosti specifically is being selective. At any rate, the fact is that RIA Novosti is one of the largest media outlets in Russia and regularly cited in Russian and international press. When they report something, it can generally be assumed that it is worthy of notice.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the primary source material (the letter) is being used inappropriately in this article and should be removed. There is no consensus to include it in any way. It is unnecessary and does not improve the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary source material is being used in a completely appropriate manner in this case. Review WP:PRIMARY before you make any more uninformed statements about policy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read it, in this context, quite closely. I conclude that this WP:PRIMARY source should not be used here, except possibly as an EL. Perhaps you could explain why you feel the (multiple) use of the same PRIMARY source material is proper in this instance. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Include This organization of less than 25 disgruntled retirees is barely notable. This section improves the notability of the organization (an organization previously not meeting standards for inclusion). The fact that they have been criticized as "clumsy conspiracy theorists" in the German press actually convinces me that this section should remain, absent that this article would likely undergo a deletion review. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your plainly expressed hostility towards the group aside, as enlightening as that hostility may be, the way in which you are including the German media criticism is POV. First saying they were criticized in the press "for being" x is not appropriately attributing the criticism to the media. Secondly, it repeats the myth about the rebels "admitting" a "Russian invasion" when they merely said what we already knew: many volunteers from Russia have been fighting alongside them. You seem to have phrased that material in a way that misrepresented the German press article, which was closer to accurately describing the statement from the rebels.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If by hostility you mean I believe it barely reaches notability, yes it is not an important group. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am misrepresenting nothing. The German media ref explicitly states that they (VIPS) ignored the rebels "admiting", the article then links its 'own full story on that admission. You may have concluded there is a "myth", that's not what the ref says. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, try reading the source again. It does not say what you intimate it says in your phrasing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, please try adjusting your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. All of your arguments for WP:ITSIMPORTANT are based on the fact that you've decided that certain editors are POV in the wrong direction (i.e., don't agree with your POV) and, being spiderman, you must make a stand. The fact that your perception of those editors against THE TRUTH is based on absolutely nothing other than your imagination. Provide a valid policy-based argument or drop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My position is based off having read the source and the associated comments from the rebel leader being mentioned. As it is included in the article now, the source is being misrepresented. The statement "admitting the Russian presence" in this article intimates the rebels admitted there was a Russian invasion, but they only acknowledged the presence of an uncertain number of Russian volunteers. In the provided source, it fairly accurately presents the comments from the rebel leader and the link it provides is even more accurate in how it represents the comments from the rebel leader. POV-pushing is merely the result.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Omit not only that nominate the article for an AFD. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There are other memos that have been covered more extensively, they just have not been included in the article. Without question the group is notable per our policies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Omit per WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. There simply isn't any coverage in mainstream sources like CNN or New York Times, all there is an opinion piece in the politics section of some German language news site, that's insufficient to justify inclusion. --Nug (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot take this serious, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Stern (magazine) are mainstream media, and as you obviously don't speak German please don't make claims that it was opinion pieces. The Nation is also a notable source. Galant Khan (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Came here by invitation on my talk page. It seems this is a rather obscure group, so sources about it would be de facto obscure or not mainstream sources. So, if this article is kept, you will have to continue using non-mainstream sources and non-US sources such as Stern Magazine and the Süddeutsche Zeitung. My opinion is that this article is borderline notable, with all the problems associated with it. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably you were misled by the mischaracterisation that had been done here with a mistranslation from German to portray them as "conspiracy theorists", which the article said they are clearly not, and went on to write on of them was Time magazine's person of the year 2002. See below. As they seem to have unduly way more weight here, I added another US source and will add more soon. Galant Khan (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Include per Galant. Multiple RS, clearly germane. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2014 (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.

Please don't make edits based on internet translations from a language you don't understand

This is so absurd it is even funny. Süddeutsche Zeitung writes
Auch wenn die Kritik der VIPS einige Schwächen aufweist: Als plumpe Verschwörungstheoretiker lassen sie sich nicht abtun. Dem Magazin Mother Jones zufolge hat die Gruppe einige der verlässlichsten und kritischsten Analysen der Geheimdienstarbeit unter Bush Junior veröffentlicht. Coleen Rowley war 24 Jahre FBI-Agentin. Nach 9/11 kritisierte sie die Arbeit ihrer Behörde. 2002 wurde die Whistleblowerin vom Magazin Time zur Person des Jahres gekürt. Ray McGovern gehörte zu den CIA-Analysten, die George Bush Senior im Weißen Haus über die Erkenntnisse des Geheimdienstes informierte.
Translates to
Even if VIPS' criticism has some weaknesses: They cannot be downplayed as dumb conspiracy theorists. According to the magazine Mother Jones the group has published some of the most reliable and critical analyses of the intelligence work under Bush junior. Coleen Rowley was FBI agent for 24 years. After 9/11 she criticized the work of her agency. In 2002, the whistleblower was chosen as Person of the Year by Time Magazine. Ray McGovern belonged to the CIA-analysts who informed George Bush senior in the White House about the findings of the secret services.
And our professional wikipedia editor, probably with the help of google translator or something, makes
The organization was criticized by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, which said the group consisted of "clumsy conspiracy theorists"
out of it. Hilarious. Galant Khan (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh, the Google translation actually comes out like this:

Even if the criticism of the VIPS has some weaknesses: As clumsy conspiracy theorists, they can not be dismissed. The magazine Mother Jones , according to the group has released some of the most reliable and critical analyzes of intelligence work under Bush Junior. Coleen Rowley was 24 years FBI agent. After 9/11, she criticized the work of their authority. 2002 Whistleblowerin was by the magazine Time named the Person of the Year. Ray McGovern was one of the CIA analysts, the George Bush Senior White House informed about the findings of the intelligence . Meanwhile, the political activist pulls open the official version of the September 11 attacks in doubt and support the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Even using a common Internet translation creates a very different impression than that left by Mojo's edit. How horrendous.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well there's a reason we avoid using foreign refs. It sucks. Google: "As clumsy conspiracy theorists, they can not be dismissed". Seems pretty strong. Did you read the article? It is dismissive of the group. The first part talks about how they (VIP) haven't been on the ground in the region, ignore the captured and killed Russian soldiers, ignore separatists' own admissions, says VIP make comments about separatists' "enjoying great support from the local population" was contrary to the observations of western media. They sound in the larger article as "clumsy conspiracy theorists". If a better translation says they can't entirely be dismissed as such, ok. I am fine with a correctly translated rendition. It certainly improves this marginal article. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The article actually reads as being 'they could be out of their depth as they've not taken some confirmed facts into account, but they they shouldn't be dismissed as clumsy conspiracy theorists as they were correct on other matters in the past and have some members with serious intelligence credentials.' I don't consider them to be nutters but, that said, this POV push isn't acceptable for Wikipedia in light of mainstream dismissal of their reports. For the purposes of the Wikipedia project, we're dealing with being proscribed by WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Bolstering their credibility is being used as a WP:COATRACK tactic in order that it influence readers opinions by linking the article to other current affairs articles on the current situation in Ukraine. We're not a blog or forum. If this content is going to be introduced, whether I like it or not, I'm going to be forced to balance it with other mainstream reports that will make 'em look like a bunch of idiots. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's ok if you don't speak every foreign language - who does. It's not ok if you use a faulty translation and then try to get it into the article even after you were told it is plain wrong. What clarification is needed, Nug? And why was the important information about who these people are deleted? Galant Khan (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The article says " Süddeutsche Zeitung stated the group ignored other evidence", the clarification needed is what is the other evidence Süddeutsche Zeitung referring too? --Nug (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The article notes the following in their criticism of VIPS, Nug:

• In the years since retiring from the services, none of their experts have actually been to Ukraine.
• VIPS have ignored the lists of Russian soldiers injured or killed, which have been documented by reliable independent sources (including the newspaper's respected Moscow correspondent) and well documented by the Western media.
• VIPS has ignored that separatists themselves have reported several thousand apparently off duty Russian soldiers in their ranks fighting in Ukraine.
• VIPS have ignored the fact that regular Russian paratroopers [read as on duty] have been captured on Ukrainian territory.
• Their claim that the separatists enjoy great support from the local population is contrary to the observations of Western media.

As is evident, these are hardly minor criticisms. The information regarding not dismissing them due to having some important figures in their group is certainly offset by hefty problems identified regarding their memo. Nonetheless, we have obvious cherry picking in the emphasis on how important these people are and what their reports have concluded in the past 'came true' (ooh-ah) in order to promote WP:CRYSTALBALL the notion that they must be absolutely correct again.

Sorry, but they were hardly unique in their evaluations. I've been following the news for decades and know that there were multiple think tanks and reliable sources who came to the same conclusions prior any of the VIPS memos. The fact that they have notable members does not make them prophets whose 'predictions' would leave an informed person gasping over how correct they were after the fact. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've added your clarification to the article. --Nug (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I haven't had a moment to put together a skeleton structure for a more encyclopaedic presentation of the article... but it's desperately in need of an overhaul in order to read as an article rather than a simple memo by memo list. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing encyclopedic about including demonstrably false info in an article. As long as POV-pushing editors insist on inserting the bogus claim of a rebel "admission" of "thousands of Russian soldiers" being present in Ukraine I will continue to revert them. The other SZ article linked from the SZ article being cited here makes it plainly obvious that he said thousands of Russian volunteers with many among them being soldiers on leave. It being rephrased as an admission of thousands of Russian soldiers on leave being present is a bit of shoddy journalism that, unfortunately, has been all too common over the course of the conflict. WP:V is not a suicide pact. If reliable sources are saying something about a comment that is plainly and demonstrably false then we should not include it no matter how many reliable sources perpetuate the false claim.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not what I wrote in my summary, nor did I read Nug's expansion of the content. Nevertheless, the article is badly structured and needs to be restructured with a general introduction as to why and when VIPS was assembled; a section on members over the years, as they have not remained static; a section on their salient memos (although this should be expanded to include other memos of a less controversial nature); a section on criticisms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate, what patent nonsense. You deleted what was clearly attributed to Süddeutsche Zeitung, is what they asserted to be the evidence that was ignored by VIP. Who are you to assert that Süddeutsche Zeitung's journalism is "shoddy", upon what basis do you claim that what they report is "bogus" and "demonstrably false"? Demonstrate it with cites, if you can and take it to WP:RSN. Otherwise you appear just to be engaging in tendentious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You cannot expect to include Süddeutsche Zeitung's view that the position of VIP "should not be dismissed" but exclude Süddeutsche Zeitung's view concerning the evidence of thousands of vacationing Russian soldiers serving in ranks of the rebels, that's POV. --Nug (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You actually provided the other SZ article which states and I quote: "'In our series, there have been about 3000 to 4000. Many are driven home. Much more have remained. Unfortunately, there was also dead.' For the Russians it were only for volunteers. Among them were many regular Russian soldiers who would spend their free time on the eastern Ukrainian Front, Sachartschenko said. 'They prefer to spend their holidays not on the beach, but shoulder to shoulder with their brothers who fight for the freedom of the Donbass.' In addition, many former professional soldiers came from Russia." In other words, there were about 3,000 to 4,000 Russians fighting among them over the course of the conflict and there were many Russians soldiers on leave among them. That is completely different from what you are trying to insert into the article. One article was correct and the other was incorrect because it made a shoddy summary of what the rebel leader actually stated. Either you present the rebel statement accurately or you leave the article in its current state. Honestly, seems to me you are trying to use this article as a coatrack for talking about Russia and Ukraine.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nug, what I provided as a summary is what this article said and was provided for your edification. The objective is to avoid WP:UNDUE details. No mention of numbers of numbers of Russian soldiers on leave was mentioned. Digging up another article from the same source and conflating the points made (particularly when it's wrong) is unwarranted WP:SYNTH. My objections to overly detailed reproduction of one aspect of the article as being WP:POV is equally valid for pushing the other side for POV purposes. The way it stood was a reasonable summary of an article which is, ultimately, neutral and merely presenting a for and against stance on the VIPS document to Merkel. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, that article you summarised actually referred to that other article I linked when it discussed the evidence ignored by VIPS, so therefore it isn't WP:SYNTH. It certainly isn't WP:UNDUE to clarify what that evidence is, you demonstrated your knowledge with your summary, but an average reader would not, so it is entirely reasonable and in fact necessary to provide a brief expansion. Now that other article SZ links to mentions other evidence from NATO of over a thousand Russian service men in addition to listing Sachartschenko's admission of 3000 to 4000 Russian volunteers. Now of course a Russian nationalist would claim NATO is lying and thus would seek to diminish the involvement of Russian regular troops, as Sachartschenko annd others are doing, and say only "some" of the 3000 to 4000 are Russian troops, when the evidence is that atleast a thousand are involved. Given that the central point of VIPS' statement is that there are no Russian troops involved, a brief listing of the contrary evidence is essential in attaining WP:BALANCE. --Nug (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about VIPS, not the war in Ukraine.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a venue or channel for VIPS to advocate their line. We don't go listing every single memo published by Jamestown Foundation in that article. Given that it is the war in Ukraine that has lent notability to the latest VIPS memo by Süddeutsche Zeitung challenging the veracity of VIPS' assessment, it is entirely reasonable to clarify in what SZ's evidence is. As it stands, detailing SZ's reasons for stating why VIPS' position should not be dismissed while not balancing the ledger by refusing to detail the evidence SZ says contradicts VIPS, appears to be a somewhat tendentious breach of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. --Nug (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The memos are the group's main source of notability. Detailing the "evidence" in this article is using it as a coatrack for talking about the War in Ukraine and it does not help that those seeking to detail said "evidence" find themselves unable to present the information accurately or limit themselves only to reliable claims.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Well no, given that a total of 32 memos have been published by VIPS and only three are presented here, the last on the back of the war in Ukraine, your claim that the "memos are the group's main source of notability" just doesn't stand up. The notability of the their latest memo is derived from the contradiction identified by SZ between what VIPS asserts and the evidence presented by SZ in relation to the war in Ukraine. With out that contradiction it would be just another boring non-notable memo like the 29 others. To say that providing a balanced coverage is somehow coat-racking is at best an assumption of bad faith. --Nug (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you've both made cases for the inherent problems with this article. It was initially created by an IP with a view to being a coatrack. The only times it's been further developed is in order to be used as a coatrack either lauding or discrediting VIPS. I am yet to be convinced that the group is noteworthy outside of coatrack politicking. The fact that it has figured noteworthy people in its ranks in the past and present does not automatically translate into VIPS being noteworthy. If memos are to be featured, then all must be featured. What then? Are we going to continue gaming the system on insidious (but just barely acceptable) methods by which to tick and cross where they were 'right' and where they were 'wrong'? All you need to be armed with is a reasonable knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, plus be astute enough to couch POV in neutralish language to be able to continue this piece of advocacy as if it were an article. Started as a coatrack and remains a coatrack. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So if wikipedia relevance criteria fulfilled article's still need to pass the Iryna likes it test? You were overruled by the decision that this article should not be deleted. It is ridiculous to claim it is not noteworthy after media has reported about the group all over the world. Galant Khan (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What 'article deletion' are you talking about Galant Khan. No one has submitted for article deletion. Overruled on what? The RfC? There's been no ruling on the RfC. Are you counting votes? Wikipedia is not a democracy. How much of a profile, precisely, is "... media has reported about the group all over the world." We're not discussing whether it has been reported in some form or another, we're discussing WP:COATRACK, WP:ADVOCACY and every other guideline and policy that has been brought up, so enough of your petulant child "she's not the boss of me" attitude, too. If you have further complaints, take it to an ANI: WP:BOOMERANG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see at the top of this page, it has already been decided three times that this article should not be deleted. Long before I ever came to this page. So just stop sour ridiculous claims that it should not be here. Keep your opinion if you like but spare us with more innuendo. You are the only one discussing coatrack and such nonsense. Stop deleting valuable sources and stop harassing other users with ridiculous block warnings just because you don"t like the information they add here. Galant Khan (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The last time it was nominated was 2007, so I have no idea of what you're on about in terms of my nominating it for deletion... but it's a thought. What's the "stop harassing other users" in aid of? The only user still pushing spurious content and reverting content removed by other users (not just me) is you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support a deletion review. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Capitalismojo. That makes at least two of us. Seven years have elapsed since the last AfD, and there's really no indication of long term notability (other than their becoming 'important' again according to a couple of articles when it suits as a coatrack). There are, also, a couple of other uninvolved editors who commented on the RfC expressing that they see no evidence for VIPS meeting notability. I'm thinking that this meets both WP:ORGSIG and WP:NPOV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Too afraid to go ahead with your ridiculous attempt to get the article deleted but brave enough to revert without any discussion... Galant Khan (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND... and there has been ample discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There has only been ample discussion, including the comments from outside that I helped to get here, that the letter to Merkel should be included, against your opposition. Now you discuss that the whole article should be deleted - maybe consider that if the letter is seen as worth including by most others it could be deduced by those who can and are willing to think without prejudice that the whole article might have some merit, too. I have seen no reasonable argumentation why the Mother Jones piece or a description of the notability of the VIPS member needs to be hidden from our readers. Galant Khan (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Large mass of edits

An editor has attempted a series of edits. One of them inserted as a ref a Mother Jones opinion column by an environmental writer for Audubon as if it were a news account. Some of the other edits seemed off. (Removing RS ref from The Devil's Advocate, then removing information sourced to the ref, mischaracterizing a ref and adding puffery ref'd to opinion column) Perhaps some of these edits have value I don't see initially. They should clearly be discussed first. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The misrepresentation especially of the Süddeutsche Zeitung piece, was just absurd, as explained above. Please take a look at the talk page before you just revert. And don't mischaracterise journalists as "nature writer"s, just take a look at what else he writes about. [1] The Mother Jones article is an interview with an introduction, certainly not an opinion piece. There was a source from Süddeutsche Zeitung that did not even include anything about the group but had a number of alleged Russian soldiers in the Ukraine used to support the alleged criticism of the open letter. That number was even from after the letter was published, completely out of context, so I removed it. I find the misrepresentations used to downplay the group highly alarming. If you have specific things to discuss, you are more than welcome, but please refrain from obscure generalised accusations. Galant Khan (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Mother Jones piece is a column. Columns, as I have had made exquisitely clear to me here at wikipedia, are opinion pieces only useful for the opinions of the writer. This writer is a nature writer. I've read one of his books. He used to write for Audubon and Nature etc... That is his forte. Even if he were a general issue colunmist, he's a columnist, not a staff reporter. It's his opinion. (And yes opinion writers do interviews too.) Capitalismojo (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Re the other ref SZ, I didn't put it in. The Devil's Advocate put it in and felt it was important in explaining the first SZ ref. I don't necessarily agree, but removing it without discussing it here was (given the recent intensity) was sub-optimal. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Galant Khan, stop using this article as WP:SOAP. You've rehashed the contents of one article (= one opinion) in order to lead readers to the conclusion that the group were 'right' on issues in the past, therefore must be 'right' again (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). You've made it evident as to your WP:POV on this and the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) article. We all have our own POV (and you might be surprised as to what my personal position is), but we do not allow it to influence the content of articles. The most important policy for all contributors to adhere to is that of neutrality in developing an article. If you can't detach yourself from your POV in developing content, you shouldn't be here. It's known as having WP:COI. This has been pointed out to you time and time again, but you are persisting with the WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude you have adopted. Do NOT re-add content when you have opened an RfC which has not been closed yet. Wikipedia is clear on this matter. If you persist in behaving in this WP:NOTHERE manner, start your own blog because this article is not your blog.

The content regarding this group in relation to current events (WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS) is down to one source alone. Per WP:BALASPS, unless there is evidence that these WP:RECENTISM evaluations by VIPS have been discussed elsewhere in reliable sources (not just a few articles), the content does not belong here. I'm certain I can find plenty of sources to demonstrate that they have also been dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists' in order to balance out the information. As I see it, however, VIPS barely meets WP:GNG criteria, and bloating the Merkel section specifically to lend more credibility to their perspective is WP:UNDUE. Enough of trying to game the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that you have linked about every wikipedia rule that you could think of I just have to say that I find funny that it's exactly you who accuses others of POV. If someone turns a source into it's complete opposite, that's ok for you, but if someone shows that these people are not nobodies but one of them was Time person of the year and two others directly reported to US presidents you try to suppress it. I don't say they must be right because they were right in the Iraq case. But I find notable that a group of such high level intelligence professionals who were right in an important case that severely damaged the reputation warn about abuse of intelligence again (note that they didn't say there were no Russian soldiers in the Ukraine, they wrote the satellite photos should not be taken as proof). That's why media in the US, UK, Germany, Russia (obviously) and many other countries - just google, there are sources from Poland, the Czech Republic, Brazil... - report about them. It is ridiculous to question notability in this case.

And Mojo, if you don't know the difference between an opinion piece and an interview I'm just as sorry as I am about your translation skills. And your attempts to defend them as well as your partisan characterisation of a journalist as "nature writer" are just sad. You have to admit it's pretty obvious that the latter wasn't in any way informative but only an attempt to discredit the journalist who just wrote verifiable information like the credentials of the group members. Galant Khan (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to complain about POV all you like, but that does not excuse structuring an article intentionally to lead the reader to form an opinion as to the credibility of the source when it involves WP:RECENTISM. That is where the difference between POV and neutral articles lies. I'm eliminating loaded information and will present a suggestion in a new section tomorrow morning as I'm logging off for the night. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose deletion

VIPS has been an extremely well informed voice that counters the spin orchestrated by too many governments. I've seen Ray McGovern, in particular, in many televised interviews and have listened to and met the man in person, questioning him at length. His is not a welcome presence in bureaucratic circles, as he has irritated the duopoly by presenting inconvenient facts that contest the pablum the public at large is usually fed regarding critical issues. That is a practice engaged in by almost every TV channel and most major print media. I think the page should be retained. Activist (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, in case you haven't noticed, there is already an article on Ray McGovern, but he is not VIPS... nor are any of the other notables who have been associated with VIPS. Check through the talk page carefully: notable people involved in an organisation do not automatically make the organisation notable. You're entitled to your POV (personally, if the principles behind Wikipedia were that of WP:ADVOCACY, I am far more impressed with David North, and I'd consider your opinions to be in keeping with that of a wet, small-l liberal). You may note that you'll find contributors of various political inclinations here on this page alone, but personal preferences have nothing to do with encyclopaedic content. Your argument is simply WP:ILIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, VIPS member Colleen Rowley was Time magazine's Person of the Year 2002 and media around the world have reported about VIPS's memoranda numerous times but you don't even shy back from using false translations and deleting sources like the Mother Jones piece to discredit and downplay them... Galant Khan (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this aimed at me? What 'false translations' don't I shy away from? I've tried to veer away from all WP:UNDUE crud deliberately introduced in order to sway the reader. You didn't like the fact that there was consensus against the use of the VIPS material you wished to introduce to the Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), which was just about to be merged into 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine precisely because it was a POV reiteration of that article (not that you gave a damn about that merge proposal). To be tendentious, you opened an RfC on the now defunct article and opened the same RfC here. Your proposal to introduce it was flatly rejected on the defunct article, so you're continuing to focus on this article. If you want Mother Jones introduced here, you'd better take it to the Reliable sources noticeboard and explain where and why you want to use it. Good luck with that. I'll be introducing all of the forum shopping and gaming the system you've been using to create a coatrack when you open it up for discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I already answered why I asked for comments to both articles, they had he same issue. And instead of accepting that the comments clearly showed your argumentation does not convince now you claim this article should not be there. The Mother Jones article is a completely valid source to see what people think about the group. You claimed you'd show other sources and come up with a new version a while ago, never happened. Couldn't find sources that support your pet version that this is just a fringe group that one could just forget about? Galant Khan (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought on developing it, but don't think they are significant enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia... or did you not get that point after I'd considered reworking it? The only 'pet version' at work here is yours: that they are significant enough to merit an article, particularly one which makes them look like oracles for predicting the future. Where are the rest of their memo's? Where is the secondary sources looking into their history, the various people involved in this 'project' over the years, and anything other than a handful of articles over the years which would act as a test of determining whether or not they are genuinely notable? Get together some solid RS and put it together without turning it into a coatrack. Don't try to delegate work to me well after I've made it clear that I don't consider them to meet GNG.

Incidentally, if you care to look it over again, your proposal was undoubtedly, unarguably quashed (as I've already pointed out above) for the other article... and where, exactly, have you determined that 'other people' have agreed that Mother Jones is an acceptable source for this article? Please do tell! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It has already been decided three times that the article should stay, there are dozens of reliable sources reporting about them, I don't think you understand wikipedia policy on notability. I didn't write that anyone else than me think that Mother Jones is an acceptable source, I wrote that it is (in my view) a valid source to see what other people (journalists) think about the group. I have the impression that you don't even read what I write because you have made your opinion anyway and don't care for a reasonable discussion. Galant Khan (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Signatories of Open Letter to Angela Merkel

There are also David MacMichael and Ann Wright who already have their articles, should that information be included? Galant Khan (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

official collection of their letters

For organizations it is usual practice to have a link to their website in their article. Deleting this with the pretext that it's not impartial is absurd, would you do that with the - clearly marked as external - link to the Republican Party? Galant Khan (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that this is an "official collection" of their letters? War Is A Crime.org appears to be a separate entity. VQuakr (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I spent an entire day engaged in a comprehensive search for this group as having any substantial merit for inclusion in Wikipedia by using the original AfDs for any information of value, plus a little lateral thinking. They have no official site, nor are there any indications of mentions outside of a few of their changing members in their line up as being notables. As I have already indicated to Galant Khan in no uncertain terms, per WP:GNG, having had some notables does not make them notable in themselves. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop spreading your nonsense, there are dozens of articles in media world wide spread over a decade discussing the group explicitly and you know that very well. And the fact that they use a sub page of a separate page as their archive does not make it less official. Member Ray McGovern links to the collection on his website as I already wrote: "Ray still serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity; VIPS’ 26 corporate issuances are posted on warisacrime.org/vips." many of the sources do so as well, that's also how it is first in the google search results for the group. Galant Khan (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: given the three "keep" closures of the previous AfD's, I am skeptical whether arguments that the group is not notable will get much traction. I am also not clear on how this is relevant to a discussion about inclusion of an external link. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Galant Khan: focus on content, not editors please. Per your description it sounds like the groups may share a member, that does not mean that the link falls under WP:ELOFFICIAL. Coming in at the top of Google hits is unconvincing to me, as well. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with"two groups". Ray McGovern is in the steering group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and he gives this link for the collection of their letters, as do many of the sources. Shall I contact him to ask to put the title "official collection of our letters" so that wikipedia would include it? I find that absurd. Galant Khan (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

When you put words in quotes, it implies that you are quoting someone. This article is about VIPS, not a member of its steering group. VQuakr (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

From our own article: "quotation marks [...] are punctuation marks placed either side of a word or phrase in order to identify it as a quotation, direct speech or aliteral title or name. They are also used to indicate that the meaning of the word or phrase they surround should be taken to be different from (or, at least, a modification of) that typically associated with; in this way, they are often used to expressirony."

No problem, if you insist I can contact them and ask them to title their website "official" so that it can be included in wikipedia. Galant Khan (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The web site claiming it is an "official" collection would not automatically make it so. It is the website of a different organization. So when you said, 'I'm not sure what you mean with"two groups".' it was an expression of irony? I think we are done here, you are failing on credibility. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: There's been a protracted, ongoing dispute over the inclusion of various content in this article as being WP:COATRACK. Ghalant Khan opened this RfC here at the same time as opening same RfC on the article "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" which was already in the midst of a merge discussion due to its being a POV duplicate of a neutral version of the article. The upshot of it all is that the use of the material was deemed WP:UNDUE in the current affairs article (and the only edit warring on that article was by this user), therefore this article became the user's surrogate, "But they've been right before." They've also been wrong before, but that's been redacted. My main objection to the content, as it stands, is that this group is being presented as being oracles and drawing the reader in to be so gosh-darned impressed by the credentials that WP:CRYSTAL is deduced (AKA coatrack). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I quoted you with "two groups", you had just not been very clear, neither with that remark nor with the one about the quotes. It is not forbidden to use a page of another group as official webpage. And as you can see from their website, warisacrime is a coalition of groups, so it does not surprise one of these groups uses a subpage of that website as its official collection of memoranda. In general I don't think a condescending other users is in any way helpful.

Irina, you are the only one writing innuendo about coatrack, and your umpteenth insinuation that I asked for comments on two pages that had a related issue for strange reasons in your imagination violate one of those wikipedia rules you like so much: "assume good faith". There is nothing about oracles in the article. What you call "credentials" is just information, that's what an encyclopedia is for, no? Galant Khan (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Galant Khan: if you quoted me, then it should be easy for you to provide a diff where I used the phrase "two groups." Please do so. I called you out for inappropriate use of quotation marks and you doubled down with irrelevant dictionary definitions rather than admit your error. If you are unwilling to own such an obvious mistake, why should I give any credence regarding your unsupported assertion about this external link? VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Galant Khan, where has it been accepted that War Is A Crime.org is considered a reliable source? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the material at the site is in any sense official, or that the site is in any way reliable source. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Under external links official websites don't need to be reliable sources, just like the Republican Party has its website in the article, as you were already told above but would you ever listen... It is linked from the website of a member of the steering group and countless other sources. Galant Khan (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO Avoid external links to : "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. " That's why we need to know if it is at all reliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted blanking a lot of the article

I think that deleting the group's last two memos from the article warrants at least a little discussion. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Both memos should go because the current text flunks WP:WEIGHT. If stronger sources can be found, then mention of the two memos can stay, although the text might be adjusted to match said sources. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Reviving discussion September 2016

Apologies, but retaining and developing those two memos simply won't be happening because the entire article keeps being used as a WP:COATRACK. Please always read talk page discussions on articles before trying to develop them further... particularly the outcome of the RfC above. So far as I can see, it's time to AfD this article as the group failing WP:N. Wikipedia is not WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING and, per WP:INHERITORG, the fact that VIPS has had notable people in it does not make the organisation notable (other than on POV wishlists). The 2010 and 2003 are equally as COATRACK in the other direction. The entire premise behind this article is the perception that the organisation was right or wrong on their interpretation of events and outcomes of events, therefore they must always be right or, conversely, they must always be wrong. This is a WP:FAILN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Note that this is not revert blanking: the content developed was against WP:CONSENSUS. Most editors, like myself, have so many articles on our watchlists that notifications of changes drop off if there hasn't been activity on an article for a while. That does not justify the use of WP:NINJA edits against consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060216095404/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/christison07152003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/christison07152003.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100815051300/http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com:80/2010/08/05/will-israel-bomb-iran-this-month/?test=latestnews to http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/05/will-israel-bomb-iran-this-month/?test=latestnews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about undue weight and consortiumnews.com

Concerns about WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and use of source consortiumnews.com with these edit changes: [2].

Appears to violate WP:NPOV with large amount of blockquoting, etc, instead of plainly stating and describing.

Not sure if CounterPunch is such a great source here either.

Both should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Note User:Sagecandor's further attempts at censorship here. Tlroche (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not "censorship", that is where I reported a WP:BLP issue of unreliable sources about living persons to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Sagecandor (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In light of recent developments, in which VIPS has repeated their previous claims and gotten more press this time, I think the December 2016 memo should, at the very least, be mentioned. The best source I could find that reported this, ironically, is Russia Today. Yeah, I know RT is pretty much state propaganda, but this is just reporting that VIPS sent a memo at a certain time. ^Falling_Gravity 01:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

How very helpful of those guys at RT! Not. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: Please read Wikipedia's own article on RT, plus check the RSN and NPOVN with regards to Russia Today. It is not a reliable source however you argue it (other than as a source for official statements): but in a situation where it deals with issues that concern the RF in the most immediate sense, it is not even acceptable as a BIASED source as it's a propaganda outlet for the government. They can write articles on VIPS, VIPS memos, VIPS dissent, VIPS anything until they're blue in the face, but suggesting that it is a reason for inclusion in an article is the stuff of WP:REDFLAG. My apologies if this missive has come across as being curt. I suspect you haven't been privy (read as embroiled) to the long, long, long, protracted (protracted, protracted) debates as to RT as a source. Cheers for the AGF observation, nevertheless. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Iryna Harpy: Okay, how about this article from CNN-News18? ^Falling_Gravity 04:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Tlroche

[3] and [4]

These edits by Tlroche (talk · contribs) violate WP:BLP and WP:RELIABLE as insertion of information about multiple living people to sources that fail reliable sources.

Please do not add back without first obtaining talk page consensus to do so. Sagecandor (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal. If Consortiumnews or CounterPunch sees fit to archive VIPS' memos on their sites, that's their right. If AEI and other neoconservative sites you choose to favor dislike VIPS, that's their right. But I will continue to add valuable content as I see fit. Tlroche (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please keep your comments to content and not individual contributors, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Evidently, Tlroche, you have difficulties understanding policy, as well as the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Your edit summaries and 'discussion' techniques are heavily on the WP:BATTLEGROUND side of POV, while your editing practices are heavy on the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than WP:NPOV. Note that this is not an attack on you, but a serious commentary on how you have been treating this article and sources in general. I'm putting it down to inexperience as a gesture of good faith, but good faith in a collaborative project should be reciprocated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Consortiumnews and counterpunch are not reliable sources. Additionally Tlroche is clearly engaging in personal attacks (here and on related pages) and comments like "I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal", calling good faithed edits "vandalisms" and standard discussion "smears" display a pretty strong WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Tlroche (talk · contribs) was blocked. Sagecandor (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

July 2017 memo on US election hack

What's the problem with including the latest memo on alleged US election hack? It is quoted in a Bloomberg article by Leonid Bershidsky (who actually urges to give it more attention) and an Independent Journal Review article. --S. Roix (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"and Independent Journal Review" - um, you're sort of making the case against yourself here. This illustrates why it shouldn't be included. It's WP:FRINGE junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Fox News is just as controversial, and yet it is used as an RS in this very article. There's also that article by the Nation; regardless of users opinions on whether it's "longwinded" or "pro-Putin propaganda", the Nation itself is a noteworthy news outlet. The issue is not whether the story itself is true or BS; the issue is, whether it has sufficient thrid-party coverage to be included. --S. Roix (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Who said anything about Fox news to verify this byte bit? Strawman. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Jerusalem Post citation

This edit [5] goes against the words and the tone of the cited source, which accuses Israel inter alia of "longstanding" deception. This edit should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I changed "Israel was likely to unilaterally attack" to "estimated that Israel would unilaterally attack" based on the sources cited, one of which used "estimated", the other used "might." Neither used "likely."

I wouldn't object to changing "record" to "history" but given that "long history" is not in the source I would like an explanation of the difference between history and long history in the context of a 70-year-old nation. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Just change the text back to reflect the cited source, and we'll be on solid ground. I don't think anyone "estimates" something they believe is "unlikely" Think about it. Do we estimate it's going to rain when we believe it's not going to rain? You get my drift? Thx. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

In the comment above I explained (with quotes from the cited sources) why the previous wording did not reflect sources. With controversial predictions our text should reflect the cited sources as closely as possible. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I support your removal of this content as I was unable to find secondary sources, but dispute the implication in your edit summary that I added or restored it; my only modifications were removing "unsubstantiated" (OR/SYNTH), adding a wiki-link and tightening the prose. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Would you support an AfD at this time? SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not well-versed in criteria for deletion and don't have a strong opinion either way. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it. No rushf for that, anyway. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'd certainly support an AfD, but the arguments would have to be well presented. The last of the three previous AfD nominations was in 2007, and the arguments for keeping the article were weak (to put it kindly: they read like the WP arguments to avoid essay). This article is a COATRACK which only sees activity every so many years when there are a few passing op-ed pieces commenting on one of VIPS multitude of memos (i.e., WP:RECENTISM), and POV editors want to reinforce the notability of the memo by giving this article another shot in the arm. That's difficult to do when there's nothing other than proof that the body exists, but nothing to substantiate anything beyond verifiability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

These things can't be rushed. They go in one of two directions. Either consensus realizes over time that they are actually not notable, or -- as in the Murder of Seth Rich -- there's eventually RS coverage of the folks who fomented the fake news and promoted and sustained it. We'll see how this one turns out. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was prepared to submit an AfD in 2014 (if you've seen the discussions further up on this talk page), but was well aware of having to come up with a very, very solid rationale for deletion. I'm in no rush! In the meantime, the issue at hand is keeping the coatrack to as bare a minimum as is possible. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Feldman in NY Mag

This NY Mag article by Brian Feldman was recently added: http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/the-nation-article-about-the-dnc-hack-is-incoherent.html Feldman's CV includes managing a Tumblr blog, "making GIFS" and blogging "Meme[s]." He has, as far as I can tell, no demonstrable technical or intelligence experience. If it can be demonstrated that he does I will reconsider but as is his criticism of intelligence professionals is undue. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a reliable source. You are welcome to take it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The existence of a source isn't sufficient justification for inclusion. This response does not address any of the points I raised above. If you seek to include new content you must establish consensus for inclusion, which you have not. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see this as undue at all, nor do I see any credible reason for removal. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. True, existence of RS is not sufficient, just necessary. But once the RS has been provided, the burden flips to the person who wishes to exclude it. And WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut. So the burden of consensus is now on you and those wishing to exclude. Why exactly? You haven't provided a coherent rationale.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Please address my justification for removal, that the author lacks expertise in the relevant fields which would establish weight. This is the 3rd article in a week you've followed me to. If you intend to continue I would appreciate you contributing substantively to the discussions. Alternating "I see it as undue/I don't see it as undue" comments that don't provide the underlying reasons for the view are not conducive to consensus. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

" This is the 3rd article in a week you've followed me to" - quit it with the gaslighting Lambden. You followed ME to this article, like you always do, inserted yourself into a middle of a disagreement that had nothing to do with you simply because *I* was involved, and are now... pretending that uninvolved editors who showed up to comment are stalking... you? Gimme a break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps regrettably, Wikipedia policy does not require us to prove somebody is an expert before their opinion is cited - we trust reliable sources to vet their contributors. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, the NYM article is on a tangential topic: it says almost nothing about the VIPS' report itself and the 2016 election, just comments extensively on the quality and structure of the Nation article. This is why it's irrelevant IMO; Wikipedia is not a literary criticism website. --S. Roix (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Your interpretation of policy is contrary to my understanding and the strong views of other participants in this discussion expressed by SPECIFICO here and again here, along with Volunteer Marek. Please review those discussions. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how my comments run contrary to theirs. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't see the relevance of comments advocating the removal of non-expert opinion to your claim that expertise has no bearing on inclusion? That is concerning. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood again. My point is that we do not require original research to prove somebody is an expert- we can take a reliable source at its word. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And of course, the inevitable [6]. Sameold sameold. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove this, and I think in fact that inclusion in positively required under WP:EVALFRINGE. New York magazine is a reliable source, and it appears the author has been an associate editor there for about 2 years and a writer for the Washington Post for a year before that. I can't see any reason why the Nation report would be citable, but the New York magazine not. Neutrality^talk 01:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, the reason is WP:COATRACK. The NYM article says very little about the VIPS report itself; instead, it focuses solely on the literary quality of the Nation article. And since this article is about VIPS, including the NYM report would mean diverting too far from the topic. S. Roix (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It actually discusses both.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As V. Marek says, the New York article does not "focus solely on the literary quality of the Nation article" - rather, it directly speaks to the substance of the Nation article and the VIPS claims underlying it. Neutrality^talk 14:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that Feldman doesn't even attempt to debunk VIPS's claims, I wouldn't call his analysis particularly insightful, but "Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong" by Joe Uchill of The Hill is well-worth reading. Here are some choice excerpts:

• "'In short, the theory is flawed,' said FireEye's John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at FireEye, a firm that provides forensic analysis and other cybersecurity services. 'The author of the report didn't consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims.'"
• "Hultquist said the date that Forensicator believes that the files were downloaded, based on the metadata, is almost definitely not the date the files were removed from the DNC. That date, July 5, 2016, was far later than the April dates when the DNC hackers registered 'electionleaks.com' and 'DCLeaks.com.' ... And if an insider removed files from the DNC on July 5, it could just as likely be a second, unrelated attack to the Russian one. Even if there were no other scenarios that would create the same metadata, experts note that metadata is among the easiest pieces of forensic evidence to falsify."
• "Proponents of the Forensicator theory have accused CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch of being biased against Russia, negating his firm's analysis. But CrowdStrike was not the only firm to conclude Russia was behind the attack. In the end, Fidelis, FireEye, SecureWorks, Threat Connect and other CrowdStrike competitors all confirmed Crowdstike's results. The intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, also claims to have evidence the attacks were coordinated by Moscow, though they have not released their evidence to the public."

With regard to the second point, recall that Lawrence's account in The Nation says the following: "'We continue to stand by our report,' CrowdStrike said, upon seeing the VIPS blueprint of the investigation. CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC's computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike's logic appears to be circular." No-one has refuted CrowdStrike on the question of Russian malware being found in the DNC's system, although, as Jeffrey Carr has explained, concluding that Russian malware must have been employed by Russian government hackers is a bit like assuming from the presence of a Kalashnikov rifle at the scene of a murder that the killer must have been Russian: "'AGENT-X has been around for ages and ages, and its use has always been attributed to the Russian government, a theory that's known in the industry as "exclusive use,"' Carr said. 'The problem with exclusive use is that it's completely false. Unlike a bomb or an artillery shell, malware doesn't detonate on impact and destroy itself. 'You can recover it, reverse-engineer it, and reuse it. The U.S. government learned a lesson about that when it created the Stuxnet computer worm to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Stuxnet survived and now other people have it.' Carr said he is aware of at least two working copies of AGENT-X outside Russian hands. One is in the possession of a group of Ukrainian hackers he has spoken with, and the other is with an American cybersecurity company. 'And if an American security company has it, you can be certain other people do, too,' he said."

Uchill's article is itself flawed, however, for seeming to conflate the DNC hack/leak with the hack of Podesta's emails, and for regurgitating nonsense, as in "It would be far more difficult to fabricate other evidence pointing to Russia, including the malware only known to be used by the suspected Russian hackers, and internet and email addresses seen in previous attacks by that group."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX way off the mark for the question at hand. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the above post by TTAAC goes over a lot of sourcing that could be used in this article. SPECIFICO, these one-line dismissals that you constantly give are really getting tiring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Given that Feldman doesn't even attempt to debunk VIPS's claims" - he does debunk it though, to the extent one can debunk gibberish. You do that by pointing out that it's gibberish, which Feldman does. I mean, what you expect him to do, produce the pee tape to "debunk VIPS's claim"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

All in due time.. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

According to Danielle Ryan in Salon, "New York magazine ... described Lawrence's article as 'too incoherent to even debunk,' and therefore provided no substantial rebuttal."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Good googling. Secondary source confirms the noteworthiness of the NY Mag conclusion. We are done. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Secondary coverage

Were the reasons for my restoration here clear? The restored text cites The Nation for claims about VIPS' memorandum and Bloomberg for claims about The Nation's article. Both sources are secondary for the statements cited to them. I am not familiar with Leonid Bershidsky's qualifications so I did not restore his opinion. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Leonid Bershidsky is not an expert in IT and information security, but he's a renowned political analyst. That's why he doesn't comment on the technical side of the story, but discusses the negative political consequences of scapegoating Russia. --S. Roix (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Including affirming the consequent, "scapegoating"? C'mon. That's nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

More secondary coverage from Salon here; author Danielle Ryan notes:

• "The VIPS report also notes that the timing of events is strangely favorable to Hillary Clinton. It is hard to disagree. On June 12, 2016, Julian Assange announced that he would publish documents related to Clinton’s campaign on WikiLeaks. Two days later, Crowdstrike, the firm paid by the DNC, suddenly announced the discovery of malware on DNC servers and claimed it had evidence that the Russians were responsible for it. This set in motion the narrative for Russian hacking. A day after that, Guccifer appeared, took responsibility for the purported June 14 hack and announced that he was a WikiLeaks source, working on behalf of Russia. He then posted the documents which VIPS now claims were altered to make them appear more 'Russian.' On July 5, two weeks later, Guccifer claimed responsibility for another hack—which the VIPS report categorically states can only have been a leak, based on the speed of data transfer. As Lawrence suggests, this timing was convenient for the Clinton campaign, which could avoid dealing with the contents of the leaks by instead focusing on the sensational story of Russian hacking."
• "Instead of subjecting the various accounts of what happened last summer to rigorous scrutiny, the media instantly accepted the narrative promoted by the Clinton campaign and U.S. intelligence agencies. It has continued to do so ever since. Now, as new information comes to light, the media has largely acted as if it did not exist."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The conspiracy theory stuff in the lead is an opinion and source is not adequate to present it as a fact. Bear in mind that BLP applies. TFD (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes sir. But also spade-is-a-spade. RS say it. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to an article in the "political animal" blog in Washington Monthly ("Conspiracy Theories on the Left"), written by Nancy LeTourneau. Previously it was written by Kevin Drum. It fails as rs because it is a an opinion expressed in an opinion piece, not a fact reported in a news article.

You know that whether or not something is true is irrelevant if the source is not reliable.

TFD (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Amazing. One single, obscure opinion piece is enough to state flat-out in the lead that this group peddle conspiracy theories. Multiple sources from mainstream media directly saying the same about Louise Mensch? Hours of fighting against even referring to the accusations on her page. One might almost think SPECIFICO is judging each of these cases by different standards for some reason. And no, of course this does not go in the lead as a statement of fact. Beyond that, it's debatable whether one opinion piece needs to be mentioned and cited at all, even if properly attributed. N-HH talk/edits 16:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

More importantly, SPECIFICO's source does not say anything even remotely resembling her summary that "[VIPS] has issued several false warnings and repeated conspiracy theories." If "RS say it," why did SPECIFICO have to resort to outright misrepresentation?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO has since clarified that that source (originally added by Volunteer Marek, not her) is irrelevant, and that she preferred to keep "[VIPS] has issued several false warnings and repeated conspiracy theories" unsourced in the lead because it is consistent with the body; it remains the case, however, that no one source supports that formulation. That said, to be more precise, SPECIFICO (and it seems Volunteer Marek) is guilty of WP:SYNTH, rather than "outright misrepresentation."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Could you please explain why you are using edit summaries like this to revert content? It seems that you have opened case after case at the SPI on the suspicion of socking, nearly all of which have been declined. The fact that an IP lives somewhere in the US and has reverted something, and you don't like it, does not automatically equal sock. Open an investigation, but don't automatically call every IP a sock unless you have evidence. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, the behavioral evidence of Boulder, Colorado IPs following SPECIFICO around and reinstating her edits verbatim, replete with personal attacks, is overwhelming and has been documented at great length on numerous occassions and supported by several admins. If you don't know how WP:SPIs work (e.g., that checkuser will never be used to connect an IP with a named account), that's fine, but your ignorance of such matters is irrelevant to this talk page. Furthermore, that you may like Oneshot's sockpuppetry also has no bearing on whether or not it should be accepted by the community. In fact, the exact IP you are defending was already named an apparent sock by admin EdJohnston. I apologize if this response seems overly terse, but your assertion that my evidence consists of "an IP lives somewhere in the US and has reverted something, and you don't like it" can only be read as a bad faith accusation or, more probably, an admission that you did almost no research before commenting.TheTimesAreAChanging(talk) 21:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The Crusader Rabbit anti-IP agenda does not belong on this article talk page. Many of the oft-disparaged edits from various IPs are good policy-based article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course you would think that, SPECIFICO, given that Oneshot is usually just helping you edit war by reinstating your edits verbatim: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] That said, IP hopping to get around edit warring restrictions is unhelpful and disruptive, like it or not. I already said that this topic "is irrelevant to this talk page," and, since you just repeated my sentiment above, I don't know why you would continue beating this dead horse—especially with more of the ludicrous pop culture references you seem to have a penchant for and that serve only as a distraction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead but also body

Agree per comments above that the Washington Monthly piece does not even say what it is being presented via the cite in the lead as saying (it's much vaguer than that, and aimed more at the Nation piece than the VIPS report itself). Perhaps people are also justifying this lead text because of this sentence in the body, about the 2013 Syria memo?

• "However, when asked about the identity of their sources, the group's report turned out to be based on an article from a conspiracy website "Global Research" and, Infowars, the radio show of the far right commentator and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones."

This is cited to this piece in the New Republic. It is highly critical of VIPS, but does not say anything like that. That piece mostly takes to task a separate article written by someone who signed the VIPS open letter, which does indeed include claims sourced (stupidly, tbh) to those two sites. However, this is not the same as the *VIPS memo* being sourced *only* to those sites, which is what the text claims. It's also horribly written. N-HH talk/edits 21:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh? It says almost exactly that. Quote: "The sources for VIPS' most sensational claims, it turns out, are Canadian eccentric Michel Chossudovsky’s conspiracy site Global Research and far-right shock-jock Alex Jones’s Infowars"

I have no idea where you got your claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And to be perfectly clear, it does NOT say that these sources were sources for some "separate article". It explicitly states that these conspiracy/far-right sources were the sources for "most sensational claims", i.e. what's in the open letter, i.e. the *VIPS memo*. It's just that the signatories of that "separate article" fessed up about where they got the idea when asked. Please don't try to muddy the waters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I "got my claims" from reading the entire piece – something you obviously could not have had time to do before knee-jerk reverting – and understanding the distinction between the actual VIPS memo and one VIPS member's claims in a separate piece. You have not read it properly. It does not refer to any confession from VIPS – indeed the author explicitly says they were "evasive" about it, so he's extrapolating from the Giraldi piece. Sure, make or argue for other changes, but please can people apply a little thought to all this rather than playing partisan games and just reverting back in really shit and misleading text. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 21:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

FFS. You're now even blindly reverting the whole thing again, including my sorting out the reference, adding attribution and improving the garbled English? This really is pathetic. N-HH talk/edits 21:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

" something you obviously could not have had time to do before knee-jerk reverting" - Hmmm, maybe I had time to do it during... the several days since I added that info? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Is that perhaps possible?

Anyway, here's the full relevant text from the source:

"VIPS insists its detailed account of the attack came from “a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East.” These have confirmed, they say, that the “chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters." Based on “some reports,” they allege, “canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened." They forcefully reject the notion that “a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area."

I asked three of the signatories about their sources. They proved curiously evasive. But one VIPS member, Philip Giraldi, has since published an article in The American Conservative—and the reason for their hesitation has become obvious. The sources for VIPS' most sensational claims, it turns out, are Canadian eccentric Michel Chossudovsky’s conspiracy site Global Research and far-right shock-jock Alex Jones’s Infowars. The specific article that Giraldi references carries the intriguing headline “Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?” (The answer, in case you wondered, is yes.) The author is one Yossef Bodansky—an Israeli-American supporter of Assad’s uncle Rifaat, who led the 1982 massacre in Hama. Bodansky’s theory was widely circulated after an endorsement from Rush Limbaugh. A whole paragraph from Bodansky’s article makes it into the VIPS letter intact, with only a flourish added at the end. "

So let's see:

"detailed account of the attack"

"came from “a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East.”

"Based on “some reports,” they allege"

"They forcefully reject the notion"

"I asked three of the signatories about their sources"

"one VIPS member, Philip Giraldi, has since published an article in The American Conservative" (my emphasis)

"The sources for VIPS' most sensational claims, it turns out, are Canadian eccentric Michel Chossudovsky’s conspiracy site Global Research and far-right shock-jock Alex Jones’s Infowars"

To be clear again - maybe it will help this time - this is indeed about the VIPS memo, not "one VIPS member's claim"

So, what's the lesson here?

Well, one of them might be that if you're gonna accuse others of not reading the source, it's probably best to actually read it yourself.

The text is fine, it accurately represents the source. Accurately representing the source is not "playing games". Like I said in the edit summary. You got this backward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You're now even blindly reverting the whole thing again, including my sorting out the reference, adding attribution and improving the garbled English? This really is pathetic" - if you had given me a second before reverting I would have put the full reference back in. As to "garbled English and attribution" - frankly, it's your English prose which is hard to understand. It's a clumsy run-on sentence with confusing syntax and subject verb agreement (like what the antifa does "criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources to contradict the "considered judgment"" actually mean?). Indeed, the confusing and discombobulated way that whole sentence is written is a pretty good signal that it's trying to weasel and misrepresent (writing incomprehensibly is a pretty good tactic for NOT conveying important information, which appears to be the purpose here).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, so you read it earlier. But as noted, you can't have read through my objections, re the detail of what he says as opposed to cherry-picked hyperbole, the grammar, the need for attribution etc. And you're just reverting my attempts to deal with those issues all out. As noted in my edit summary "it turns out .." is the author's *interpretation* at that point in the piece, based on his reading of the subsequent Giraldi piece. Earlier, he acknowledges that they relied on personal sources too. You've also elided the "most sensational" qualification, to suggest *all* their claims were based on Infowars and Global Research. N-HH talk/edits 22:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

" you can't have read through my objections, re the detail of what he says as opposed to cherry-picked hyperbole, the grammar, the need for attribution etc." - of course I could have. I don't know about you, but it doesn't take me that long to read one sentence + one edit summary. I mean, yes, the confusing way in which your sentence was written gave me pause, but it's still just one sentence. "It turns out" is not "interpretation", where do you get that? If I think Barca beat Real Madrid 3:1 but "it turns out" that they actually lost 0:2 that doesn't make their loss "my interpretation". ???. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine, you read that too then, if you say so. But not so you managed to take any of the points or problems on board. And could you tell me where my text is "misrepresenting the source". The point is we are pulling different things out, with you excluding significant qualifications and details (and offering no explanation for that when it is pointed out to you). Of course the "it turns out" is interpretation. He explains himself that he's basing that judgement on the later piece. Jesus. And you're still blanket-reverting back in a fucked-up reference and appalling English. Why should anyone bother trying to improve a page here, and open a talk page section to discuss it, when people like you come along and behave like a total dickhead? N-HH talk/edits 22:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I said. It's actually your version that has "appalling English". Run-on. Messy subject-verb agreement. Too many clauses crammed into too few characters. You still have it backwards. I'm pretty sure the reference is fine now. A good starting point for discussion would be too stop pretending the source doesn't say what it actually says. The quote has been provided multiple times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean to say that you, too, think VM is a total dickhead? Perhaps there are yet others who think as we do – perish the thought. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, reread your text, and look up "dangling modifier" and how to use commas. Also look up what a "run-on" actually is and tell me where I can find what "clauses crammed into .. characters" means. Also reread my comments, where I have never "pretended" that the piece doesn't say the things you quote from it; the issue is how to summarise the actual facts reported in the piece rather than just relying on the elements of polemic and conjecture in it and presenting those as facts (if we use it at all). By contrast, you literally have not responded directly to a single point I have made. This kind of talk page obfuscation and refusal to edit collaboratively while defending such tendentious and badly written content is exactly what makes WP such a useless resource. N-HH talk/edits 09:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that the New Republic source meets rs, since it is basically a brief opinion piece rather than a news report. It's factually incorrect. Giraldi did not attribute his sources to Global Research, but wrote, "There are other anomalies we mention in our letter that also have been noted by others...." and provided a link to an article in Global Research. However, as is clear in the Global Research site, the article was originally published elsewhere. The author is Yossef Bodansky who was Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004. TFD (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. Absent better sources, the "August 2013 memo" section should be deleted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The New Republic is a perfectly reliable source. You can ask about it at RSN if you have doubts. Yes, like magazines such as Mother Jones, The Nation, National Review and even Time, Newsweek and Economist it mixes news reporting with some commentary. But this is pretty standard and does not invalidate it (else we'd have to remove a ton of sources from ton of articles). In many ways it's more reliable than outlets with shorter and sketchier pedigrees such as Salon, Slate or Politico (nevermind crap like The Intercept). The NR article most certainly contains news investigative reporting (the author talked to sources and people involved with the creation of the report, and is reporting what they said - that's investigative reporting)

I don't see it as "factually incorrect" either. Making that argument based on the fact that the author didn't link the article you think he should've linked is a huge stretch. And it's not our job to interpret sources, so this is WP:OR. So this source is just fine.

Other issue here is notability. In some ways this particular memo - concerning the Ghouta attack - is more notable than their latest dinky little conspiracy theory about this Fornicator or whatever anonymous "expert" ConsortiumNews pulled out of their ass.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I also wonder about whether at present we have sufficient sources to say much about this. I have not seen a copy of the original report and wonder whether the Nation article accurately described it. TFD (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If by "this" you mean VIPS's July 2017 memo, you can read it here, based in part on Forensicator's analysis here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes TFD I think you got a little confused here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the 2013 Syria memo, surely (which explicitly states from the outset their sources are former co-workers)? The problem with the New Republic piece, as noted, is that the author does not show that the memo is based on Global Research or Infowars, but rather simply asserts as much based on the fact that the later piece written by one of the signatories refers to them, among other sources, and that some wording is shared between the VIPS letter and the Global Research piece (and as also noted, the Global Research-hosted piece was actually republished from somewhere else). The NR author also very much did not speak to people involved: the key point of his piece is that VIPS would not tell him who or what their sources were, so he's trying to work it out for himself. Generally though, I'd agree the New Republic piece is an OK source as long as we stick to the factual elements of it, but it would be better a) to see some wider coverage of the memo, if there is any, and b) to avoid the more polemical and speculative assertions made in the New Republic. N-HH talk/edits 09:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No, no, no! You are still trying to completely misrepresent the source. What the author does is say that the signatories, who also wrote another article, told him that the info was based on Infowar and Consortiumnews. That's it. I have no idea how you're making this stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's what Ahmad actually says:

VIPS insists its detailed account of the attack came from "a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East." ... I asked three of the signatories about their sources. They proved curiously evasive. But one VIPS member, [former CIA officer] Philip Giraldi, has since published an article in The American Conservative—and the reason for their hesitation has become obvious. The sources for VIPS' most sensational claims, it turns out, are Canadian eccentric Michel Chossudovsky's conspiracy site Global Research and far-right shock-jock Alex Jones's Infowars. The specific article that Giraldi references carries the intriguing headline "Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?" (The answer, in case you wondered, is yes.) The author is one Yossef Bodansky—an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat, who led the 1982 massacre in Hama. ... A whole paragraph from Bodansky's article makes it into the VIPS letter intact, with only a flourish added at the end. ... Giraldi references two more articles to substantiate his claim: one from Infowars and another from DailyKos. But both reference the same source, an obscure website called Mint Press ... What of VIPS's "numerous sources in the Middle East," then? It turns out they're the same as Bodansky's "numerous sources in the Middle East"—the sentence is plagiarized.

Then again, Giraldi also cites reputable outlets including The Washington Post and The Guardian, not to mention whitehouse.gov and Médecins Sans Frontières. Furthermore, as TFD noted above, Bodansky "was Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004"; Global Research expressly states that it merely republished Bodansky's article from elsewhere. Using this "republication" to tie VIPS to Global Research through Giraldi and Bodansky is, in fact, somewhat reminiscent of the tactics of McCarthyism, if not Stalinism. It's clear that Ahmad's account differs significantly from Volunteer Marek's confused summary "that the signatories, who also wrote another article, told [Ahmad] that the info was based on Infowar and Consortiumnews." A more neutral summary might be: "Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, writing in The New Republic, criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources and stated that its 'most sensational claims' appeared to be largely 'plagiarized' from an article by Yossef Bodansky, whom Ahmad characterizes as 'an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat.'" What do you think of that?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, here is a fuller quote from Ahmad on Giraldi:

Giraldi references two more articles to substantiate his claim: one from Infowars and another from DailyKos. But both reference the same source, an obscure website called Mint Press which published an article claiming that Syrian rebels had accidentally set off a canister of Sarin supplied to them by the Saudis. The idea that an accident in one place would cause over a thousand deaths in 12 separate locations—with none affected in areas in between—somehow did not strike this intelligence veteran as implausible. But to its credit, Mint Press has since added a disclaimer: "Some information in this article could not be independently verified."

As damning as it may be, however, this criticism is directed only at Giraldi's piece in The American Conservative—not VIPS directly—and as such is beyond the scope of this page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Some confusion (sub-section header added by VM)

Sorry, I had not been able to find it. But notice the the report says that due to the transfer speed a hack was "unlikely," while the Nation article says it was impossible. TFD (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You're still confusing two different things TFD. This section is about the 2013 memo. The stuff about the hack is about a recent 2017 memo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of which are commonly known to be untrue. Even if a source states that strawberries are produced asexually, that doesn't mean we put it in WP. It just flags us to evaluate the source more closely. SPECIFICO talk 11:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Both of which are commonly known to be untrue" could not be more incorrect. 22 MBPS between the US and Romania is extremely unlikely if not impossible. Akamai and other CDNs maintain geographically proximate replicated servers (and companies utilize their services) to expedite content delivery. You (and Feldman in NY Mag) are essentially claiming an entire business model is bunk despite multibillion-dollar market caps.

Regarding Feldman, you have not addressed my concerns from a week ago that neither NY Mag nor Feldman are qualified to offer expert technical assessments. What makes your reluctance especially confusing is the multiple, instances in which you insisted expert claims (even those reported in expert publications) should not be included unless the author's expertise could be demonstrated. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently they're helluva more technically qualified than The Nation, Lawrence, VIPS or this "Fornicator" "hacker", or yourself for that matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It is unlikely that a hacker could have attained those speeds. Remember that the official theory was that the Russians carried out the hack by using people posing as an independent hacker in Eastern Europe. IIRC, the necessary speeds were not available to retail customers even in First World Countries. Using a proxy server to distinguish the source would also slow things down. Of course it is possible that the hacks were carried out directly from KGB headquarters. The other issue is whether the DNC servers could upload that fast. And of course we don't know if the DNC could upload at those speeds. TFD (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it's actually certain that at some point they "attained those speeds".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning. Obviously if the DNC was hacked then those speeds were attained. But then it have had to be hacked through KGB servers, not by Guccifer 2.0 in Romania. TFD (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. See FallingG's links below. The speeds could - probably were - attained simply when the hacked files were transferred or copied by the hacker before being released. Even if there is some metadata which indicates these speeds there's no reason to believe that these speeds refer to the rate at which the files were downloaded from the original source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

These festivals of OR and rumination are characteristic of fake news. They're like the cheese to tempt the mice. Only none of us here is a mouse. Whatever happened to RS and due weight? SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This article and podcast on TechTarget might be helpful. ^Falling_Gravity 00:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for that FG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not OR to say that the Nation article may not have accurately reflected what VIPS said. You want it both ways: it misrepresented the science but accurately presented what VIPS said about it. think about SPECIFICO, you are going to use a fakenews article about VIPS. TFD (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I would not use the Nation. Marginal at best. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, The Nation is one of the oldest and most prestigious political magazines in the United States, of a vastly higher quality than your preferred Salon, and you will never persuade anyone of anything with one-line dismissals such as "marginal at best." (Then again, what else can we expect from the editor responsible for the truly astonishing claim that "You may not be familiar with the American journalism sphere, but let me assure you that the Oregonian is a higher journalistic stature than either the New Republic or the Guardian"?) It's fair to say that Lawrence's article suffers from relying excessively—in fact, exclusively—on VIPS itself for all of its technical claims—rather than requesting input from independent cybersecurity experts—but there is no reason to doubt that The Nation is a WP:RS for what VIPS said, both in its memo and in subsequent interviews conducted by Lawrence. To the contrary, Lawrence's account of the VIPS memo is by far the most in-depth available in the mainstream press, as virtually all other sources are derivative.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am one of the oldest and most prodigious editors on WP. I do not hold the Nation's recent work in high regard. Unless you can find a diff where I state that I prefer Salon to The Nation you'd be well-advised to strike this misrepresentation and comment on content not contibutors. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff where SPECIFICO eliminates The Nation, New York, and The Hill, while retaining Salon as the only secondary source on the July 2017 VIPS memo. Assuming good faith, it would appear that SPECIFICO considered Salon to be the strongest secondary source—even though it's article was largely based on Lawrence's prior work at The Nation! I am willing to concede, however, that it is more likely that SPECIFICO was deliberately purging the best sources to pave the way for WP:AFD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This is woefully inadequate and does still misrepresent the source. First, ConsortiumNews and InfoWars needs to be mentioned. Second, to say that the criticism was that the sources were "anonymous" is inaccurate. They were presented as anonymous, but then turned out to be ConsortiumNews and InfoWars. That is why this info needs to be there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As explained at length above, no connection between Bodansky and Global Research has been documented besides two of the former's articles being republished by the latter. In this case, the author is more significant than the publisher host. Ahmad does not mention Robert Parry's self-published Consortium News.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got my conspiracy websites confused. Global Research. I don't know about any connection between Bodasky and Global Research. What matters is that the source explicitly states: "However, when asked about the identity of their sources, the group's report turned out to be based on an article from a conspiracy website "Global Research" and, Infowars, the radio show of the far right commentator and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones." You can't get around that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think what N-HH and I have been arguing is that, while Ahmad does open with that provocative assertion, the rest of his article presents a (slightly) more nuanced picture.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

At this point further discussion is pointless, since James J. Lambden has taken it upon himself to follow my edits and revenge-revert them on multiple articles. How am I suppose to participate in any productive discussion under these circumstances? So I don't particularly feel like putting thought and effort into answering you, because, you know, what's the point of that, if my edits will be automatically reverted by some obnoxious and creepy stalker? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And the obvious purpose of this assholery is to provoke me into breaking 3RR so he can go running to the admin board. That and more generally to, as he had stated several months prior, to drive me off of Wikipedia. So I'm not feeling particularly friendly right now Times, and it's probably best if we continue this conversation at some other time. Anyway, thank you for constructive discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

VM: Don't misrepresent the truth. Just today you have followed me to 3 articles where your only contributions were to revert my edits. It's shocking you would pull that then try to paint yourself a victim.

TTAC: Did you have objections to N-HH's original edit or was this compromise only to appease VM? If he's withdrawing that's unnecessary. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Unproductive bickering
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Stop lying Lambden. You've been stalking my edits for the past six months. I have raised complaints about it repeatedly. Lately you've adopted this sleazy tactic of accusing me of what you yourself have been doing. It's bunkum and you know it. Look at your last 500 edits. How many of them do NOT involve you stalking my edits, performing revenge-reverts or jumping into discussion to support whoever is disagreeing with me at the time? 5? 10 maybe? Then do that for your last 1000 edits. Same thing. Go back to September 2016. Same thing. You're freakin' obsessed and it's creepy as fuck. Get a life.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC) This talk page isn't the place for this discussion and frankly your behavior is toxic but I find it hilarious that you would spin you following me to 3 articles to revert my edits as me stalking you! Is this like the movies where a regular detective follows his mark from behind but the skilled detective follows them from in front? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Ten months worth of your edit history says otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC) 30 minutes ago I had been stalking you for 6 months, now it's 10 months. I don't know whether to be offended by the ever-growing misrepresentation or impressed that I fit 4 months of stalking into 30 minutes. Alright this is past productive, I'll give you the last word. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I think my version's better.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. What about my removal of Feldman? I asked Specifico for objections but I'm not getting any. @SPECIFICO: James J. Lambden (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Hill article is far better, but I don't really feel very strongly about Feldman either way.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that's in-depth. I'll re-read it. The Feldman article (NY Mag) is barely a few of paragraphs and some tweets from a former "Meme"-maker with no apparent national security or technical qualifications. Can I ask (beyond that it's RS) was your reasons for inclusion are? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it wasn't based on an article in Global Research, it mentioned that that article reached similar conclusions. I might conclude something then find you have independently arrived at the same conclusion: that does not mean I am basing my conclusion on what you say. Furthermore, Global Research is not the original publisher. They pick up articles from many sources. Note that the author was a counterterrorism expert for congress for 16 years.TFD (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy has ignored my latest compromise proposal and has instead restored content that N-HH, The Four Deuces, James J. Lambden, and myself have already demonstrated to be misleading and inaccurate in extensive discussion above. Iryna Harpy has made no substantive comments on the talk page, has not addressed any of the issues raised by the aforementioned editors, and has explained her edit in only the vaguest of generalities—giving no indication that she even bothered to read the source or consider the counter-arguments before reverting. (She has, however, taken the time to accuse me of cyberbullying, with no diffs, on my talk page!) Her only attempt at elaboration comes from her edit summary, in which she states that my prose is "convoluted," adding: "Attribution is one thing, trying too hard to make a point is another." "Convoluted" how? What "point," specifically, am I trying to make? Here are the two versions side-by-side:

My proposal: Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, writing in The New Republic, criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources and stated that its "most sensational claims" appeared to be largely "plagiarized" from an article by Yossef Bodansky, whom Ahmad characterizes as "an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat." Ahmad also noted that one of the letter's signatories—Philip Giraldi—cited dubious sources related to the Ghouta attack in a piece for The American Conservative, including Daily Kos and Alex Jones's Infowars.

Volunteer Marek's proposal: Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, writing in The New Republic, criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources and stated that its "most sensational claims" appeared to be largely "plagiarized" from an article by Yossef Bodansky, whom Ahmad characterizes as "an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat." The author also stated that when asked about the identity of their sources, the group's report turned out to be based on an article from a conspiracy website "Global Research" and, Infowars, the radio show of the far right commentator and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

In what way is the former more "convoluted" than the latter? Given that the first sentence already critiques Bodansky's expertise, why should the second bring up Global Research—which happened to republish Bodansky's article—and falsely imply that "conspiracy website Global Research" is where Bodansky's work originated? Why did Iryna Harpy restore the false implication that VIPS named Infowars as a source "when asked" by Ahmad—something flatly contradicted by Ahmad himself? Iryna Harpy has offered no good answers to these questions, or, indeed, any answers at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Oh, for goodness sake, anyone reading the two versions can see the difference. I'm not going to indulge you in a wall of text parsing the emphasis and de-emphasis taking place between the versions: it's there in black and white for all editors to see. Let's not even start on the twisting of WP:WORDS ("noted", "dubious", et al) in order to render a fake legitimacy to trash sources... As to your characterisation of me and my 'right' to edit the article, I've been watching this article with great care for (literally) years. The fact that I don't wish to engage in the battleground that is laughingly referred to as a 'talk page' is irrelevant to my participation in the editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

TTAC: Your text is an improvement because it omits Ahmad's speculation.

@Iryna Harpy: Drive-by reverts are unhelpful especially when coupled with a reluctance to engage on talk. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, James J. Lambden! Drive-by?! Have you bothered to look at the article history? Talk about battleground editing (including yourself). Lecturing experienced editors on how or how not to edit when dealing with attempts to keep a trashy article alive because they have a point to make is neither your call, nor is it appropriate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy: "Let's not even start on the twisting of WP:WORDS ('noted', "dubious", 'et al') in order to render a fake legitimacy to trash sources"? "Et al" isn't in my proposal. Calling "trash sources" "dubious" does not bolster their "legitimacy"; in fact, quite the contrary. "Noted" is in reference to Ahmad, the author of The New Republic article harshly critical of VIPS and Giraldi, not one of the "trash sources." Your apparent lack of comprehension on that last point indicates that you should stop edit warring until you have done the most minimal research necessary to participate in the discussion. After all, competence is required.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise I'd be fine with TheTimes' if DailyKos and AmericanConservative are removed. Written as is suggests a certain equivocation between those and Info War. And even those are not reliable sources they're not as wacky as IW. Global Research should also be put back in. The identification of that particular sentence from the NR article with one particular GR article is original research and synthesis. GR has been pushing this (and other conspiracies) before and after and independently of Bodansky.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Volunteer Marek, reading the entire source is not original research and synthesis! Read it again:

The specific article that Giraldi references carries the intriguing headline "Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?" (The answer, in case you wondered, is yes.) The author is one Yossef Bodansky—an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat, who led the 1982 massacre in Hama. ... A whole paragraph from Bodansky's article makes it into the VIPS letter intact, with only a flourish added at the end. ... What of VIPS's "numerous sources in the Middle East," then? It turns out they're the same as Bodansky's "numerous sources in the Middle East"—the sentence is plagiarized.

If you really want to include the Global Research smear/innuendo, we could amend my proposal, but then it would make things more "convoluted":

Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, writing in The New Republic, criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources and stated that its "most sensational claims" appeared to be largely "plagiarized" from an article written by Yossef Bodansky and republished by "conspiracy site" Global Research. Ahmad characterizes Bodansky as "an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat." Ahmad also noted that one of the letter's signatories—Philip Giraldi—cited dubious sources related to the Ghouta attack in a piece for The American Conservative, including Daily Kos and Alex Jones's Infowars.

I'm also willing to drop Daily Kos, even though it's in the source, hence the strike. Deal?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a used car lot. We follow policy not bargain deals. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this an ongoing active group?

No RS tells us that this is a coherent active continuously functioning "group" of any sort. More the opposite. 25 former spooks got together 15 years ago to protest Bush Administration actions. Did they organize legally or in any other formal action, e.g. with a statement of principles, purpose and procedure? Do they meet or at least communicate from time to time, or have any coherent governance? Do they have continuous ongoing membership or activities. It could just be different folks reusing the catchy VIPS tag. The article sounds on a quick and casual read as if this were a bona-fide "group" like the Union of Concerned Scientists or at least one of thousands of other affinity organizations. But sources and the article say nothing to support presenting it as if it were an organized entity. The article merely lists a succession of protests, some detailed and reasoned, others gross and goofy. Of the 25 retired folks who wrote the memos 15 years back, how many are still affiliated with the "organization" -- i.e. put out press releases under this monicker? Of the ones who were retired senior citizens back in the day, how many are still sharp and in touch with current intelligence in their much later years? Arguably RS tell us some of them are relying on pretty sketchy narratives for their ruminations, witness the manifest errors and omissions as reported in RS. Maybe AfD is coming down the pike? Discuss amongst yourselves. SPECIFICO talk 11:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

One possible way to deal with this would be a change of article title to "Veteran...Sanity (memos)" or some other title that does not portray these statements as coming from an established or continuous organization. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

From an editorial viewpoint, the problem is similar in many fake news articles. Recently this arose in Murder of Seth Rich. The meta-event is notable, but the event is not. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

How is The Nation's report on the VIPS / Forensicator theory "fake news"? Looks like plain old "news" to me. Or are you saying that the self-titled VIPS is fake because it's apparently not an incorporated group? Even then, we can have real news about a fake group. I'd appreciate a clarification of what you call fake. — JFG ^talk 04:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mention the nation in this section of the page. Please read up on "fake news" it's well defined, detailed and discussed in many RS publications that will do a better job than I of clarifying your general understanding. I respectfully suggest it would be time well spent, because a nose for fake news is key to our ability to edit according to WP policy and guidelines. I did not say that VIPS is fake. Please don't misrepresent other editors with straw man insinuations. Come to think of it, that's a favorite fake news tactic. Who can deny Seth Rich was murdered? Therefore the Russians didn't hack DNC. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "the problem is similar in many fake news articles", which prompted my question: "what do you call fake news in sources or contents of this article? Thanks for clarifying that you do not consider VIPS to be a fake group and you do not consider The Nation to peddle fake news. The Seth Rich controversy is irrelevant to the present discussion, I don't see why you bring it up. — JFG ^talk 09:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You can follow the links to their papers here, which list steering committee members. Mind you, we may lack sufficient reliable sources for a neutral article. Note there is no website so we cannot even use that as a source. Personally I would vote to delete the article, but it's difficult to get anything deleted. TFD (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Right. But if I may state my personal conjecture, I think it may be like many volunteer organizations of retirees geezers and brilliant kibitzers. Many such groups resurrect the "organization" name from time to time when one of them has something on her mind, but it's really just ad hoc, personal, and not the considered position of any group. AfD would bring a blizzard of fake newsicles and snowman arguments. Not worth the trouble just now. Also we could have a Seth Rich type situation where the story is one day revealed about the mysterious fake news propagation of what turns out to be goofy packet-counting propaganda. The dude hosting that website doesn't have a James Bond resume. I thought these were ex-CIA types. Anyway, it looks like a stale zombie website from the early Bush thingy was replaced only about 6 weeks ago by the one that's now featured. The website title doesn't seem very intel-like, does it? SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your WP:OR and "personal conjecture" has no place in a sober discussion of the article topic. But I'm sure you know that. — JFG ^talk 09:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear! Let me explain. WP operates on an affirmative editorial policy. My conjecture, identified as such (not OR, see?) was to point out how you can convince folks of the contrary. Just show RS citations that document this "group" as an ongoing organization rather than a ketchy title in the internet, VIPS. And the more we see, the more likely it appears that's not going to happen. So now please lay off the personal remarks and simply prove your case. I leave you to your proof. The burden is on you to develop policy-based content. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

My friend, I have no "case" to "prove". I was simply wondering how your ruminations about VIPS may help improve the article. For the record, I don't care whether VIPS exists as an organized group and I have not contributed to this particular article. RS refer to the group as VIPS, so it's only natural that the article follows sources. I originally hatted this section per WP:NOTFORUM (which you reverted) and I don't see how the latest contributions bring us any closer to improvements. — JFG ^talk 15:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't understand, I suggest you back off. This thread is about sourcing and content. Others have contributed and will continue to do so. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me I understand the point you are making. You are asking other editors to find sources proving that this group meets some definition of "permanent", "active" or "organized" that would SATISFY you. And you insinuate that if people can't readily find such sources, then it discredits whatever is written by VIPS, in the name of VIPS, or about VIPS in various RS. Sounds like "I don't like what these people are saying, so I'll question their relevance" kind of ad hominem argument. Again, if you have some proposed improvements to the article, rather than vague suppositions, I'd love to read about them and educate myself further. — JFG ^talk 16:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)