Talk:Sebastian Gorka

this latest spat

Ok. Here is the text that is being removed:

"Sebastian Gorka's mother Susan worked closely as a translator with David Irving, the discredited historian described by a judge as a "Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism"."

Here is what the source says:

"In the 1980s, Sebastian Gorka's mother, Susan Gorka, worked as a translator for David Irving, the discredited British historian who caused outrage by suggesting the Holocaust did not happen, or was at least greatly exaggerated.

A British judge ruled in 2000 that Irving was a "Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." And in 2006, he was sentenced to three years in prison in Austria on charges of denying the Holocaust.

Irving wrote an email to NBC News describing his warm working relationship with Susan Gorka."

So why is this being removed? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I am in support of Volunteer Marek here. Boscaswell talk 08:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I totally oppose the insertion of this thing. She worked as an INTERPRETER, when David Irving was writing a book about THE REVOLUTION OF HUNGARY IN 1956. She helped him with the translation during interviews with refugees. "On a practical level it would have been impossible to encompass the work and produce this history without the efforts of my interpreters Erika László, Susan Gorka and Carla Venchiarutti, and of Dr. Nicholas Reynolds who conducted some of the preparatory interview" Irving's own book:http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Uprising/intro.html

First: in those times David Irving was NOT a Holocaust denier. Second: why on Earth is it relevant info in Sebastian Gorka's bio, that his mother interpreted a few interviews on a totally different topic than the Holocaust, for someone who was 20 later described this or that? Now, the current text gives the impression of her as a Holocaust denier: Susan worked as a translator with David Irving, the discredited historian described by a judge as a "Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism".

David Irving has his own article - if You feel this specific piece of info this important, then insert the judge's words there. Here, the only reason is to put the name Gorka and Holocaust denial in one sentence. POV pushing.--Ltbuni (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The book she worked on with him was certainly anti-Semitic, if our article on David Irving is any guide:

The second book was Uprising!, about the 1956 revolt in Hungary, which Irving characterised as "primarily an anti-Jewish uprising", supposedly because the Communist regime was itself controlled by Jews. Irving's depiction of Hungary's Communist regime as a Jewish dictatorship oppressing Gentiles sparked charges of antisemitism.[51] In addition, there were complaints that Irving had grossly exaggerated the number of people of Jewish origin in the Communist regime and had ignored the fact that Hungarian Communists who did have a Jewish background like Mátyás Rákosi and Ernő Gerő had totally repudiated Judaism and sometimes expressed antisemitic attitudes themselves.[52] Critics such as Neal Ascherson and Kai Bird took issue with some of Irving's language that seemed to evoke antisemitic imagery, such as his remark that Rákosi possessed "the tact of a kosher butcher".[51]

john k (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Gorka Sebestyén

Can someone add in Dr Gorka's Hungarian name - if it is relevant?

Some old articles reference that alternative name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2017‎ (UTC)

mini Bio of Katharine Gorka added to this article

This article is about Sebastian Gorka. The mini-biography added to this article about his wife after the article about her was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Gorka seems out of place. Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. It's not appropriate to do an end-run around an AFD result by copying the content to a related article like that, and much of the material on Katherine isn't directly relevant to Sebastian's biography. I have trimmed the section to a couple of sentences. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hardly an "end run" given the explicit calls to "delete and merge" in that discussion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC about the controversy section

Is it OK, that we have an article, which focuses more on the criticism of Gorka than his own views in the Order of Vitéz and the Hungarian Guard sections?Is it OK that he and his mother are completely mixed up with Nazis and my efforts to give due weight to all of these are reverted without explanation?--Ltbuni (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ltbuni: RFCs are supposed to be neutrally worded, ask a clearly defined question, and be easy for someone unfamiliar with the topic to understand. This RFC will need to be reworded if you want it to be effective. Be specific about what content you object to and what changes you are proposing. And if I may suggest, you'd probably be better off taking this to WP:BLPN before resorting to an rfc. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I wrote on the WP:BLPN page.Thank You!--Ltbuni (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

{{BLP noticeboard}}

--Ltbuni (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Officeholder box is not appropriate"?

This edit converted Gorka's infobox from 'officeholder' to 'person' on the argument that 'Deputy Assistant to the President' is a (quite widely held; 28 the editor said) rank not an office. While I see there's considerable back and forth documented here about his place in the White House I think it's wrong to call him 'not an officeholder' at this time. I favor restoring officeholder infobox. Swliv (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The specific template doesn't matter that much but rather the information that is shown. @Asdasdasdff: I've also pinged the user who removed it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Gorka's official title is 'Deputy Assistant to the President and Strategist'. (According to the public WHO Salary disclosure July 1, 2017) The title is identical to another White House employee -- Ira A. Greenstein. This is a new made up title (I don't know of anyone in the Obama administration who had the title of "Strategist"). These roles both seem to report to Steve Bannon (before his departure) as the Chief Strategist. I think Officeholder should be reserved for situations where we have a real office -- rather than just an adhoc job title with an opaque reporting structure -- Gorka is a visible TV personality, but is a mid-level staffer among White House employees, for instance, even when she was Deputy Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was at a higher pay rate. 48 employees at the White House were at a higher pay rate than Gorka as of the July 1 report. Also for comparison, Stephanie Cutter in the Obama Administration had the title "Assistant to the President for Special Projects" -- she was the only person to have this title in the administration. It was unique to her temporary role in the administration as a special advisor for Communications. She doesn't have an officeholder infobox, because that wasn't an office, it was just a job title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdasdasdff (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The title of the infobox is irrelevant. It may as well be called Infobox:Asdasdasdff for all it matters. The only important thing is whether it includes useful parameters. TimothyJosephWood 22:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Airport arrest

There was originally a section on the arrest of Gorka at an airport because he tried to carry a gun on to a plane. The statement was backed by a story in the Washington Post. It seems like odd content to remove considering that Gorka sells himself as a security expert. 2601:1C0:6D02:27C0:F9A9:6A41:2C00:966D (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Credentials

I've removed this from the section. Nothing in it addresses questions over his academic credentials: all it is a bunch of people stating they like what he says. The section is not like a Reception area of a film or TV article where you have critics reprenting positive or negative. It's got to be relevant. This material (some of it, all of it, I don't know) may belong somewhere else in the article, but not where it was:

Heritage Foundation national security scholar James Carafano has praised Gorka for focusing on "the war of ideas," adding, "I think the notion that we can fight [radical Islamism] without discussing and referencing the religion is kind of ridiculous. Former U.S. diplomat Alberto Fernandez, who headed the Obama-era State Department Center for Strategic Counterterrorism, has said Gorka was a "good choice" for his White House role because "he has a more solid grasp of the ideological challenge than his NSC [U.S. National Security Council ] political appointee counterparties in the previous administration", Ilan Berman and Zuhdi Jasser. Congressman Robert Pittenger defended Gorka, stating that Gorka "is a friend and trusted adviser on efforts to combat radical Islamic terrorism." Retired Army Lt. Gen. Charles T. Cleveland said of Gorka that: "his instruction was crisp, relevant, and a useful part of their education on how to think about today's threats, especially terrorism."

ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't agree with that. His expertise is questionned. He has the right to have his supporters in the article. Especially when "Gorka has been characterized as a fringe figure in academic and policy-making circles.[4][5][10][42][43][44] Business Insider Politics Editor Pamela Engel has described Gorka as being "widely disdained within his own field." Removing his supporters, we would just lie. His opponents cited in the article, are left wing scholars BTW. We would totally lose balance, totaly lose neutral point of view. Sorry.--Ltbuni (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, his expertise is being questionned. That's the point you are missing. Expertise is something objectively real or not and has nothing to do with right and left wing politics. I did not say that material should not be in the article. I said it does not belong where it is. If the accusation is his degree is sketchy, you don't answer it with "he has good ideas". They are not addressing the validity or invalidity of his credentals in those quotes. You can say what you want about scholars being "left-wing", things like his thesis reviewers having only B.A. degrees is absolutely objecively damning; there is no way to take the degree seriously or indeed the instituion/faculty that allowed that to happen. Having people respond with "he's smart" or "he's right" doesn't "balance" this, it obfuscates and confuses it. By all means, keep his support but place it in an appropriate section. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase what I wanted to tell You. The opening sentences claim that "Gorka has been characterized as a fringe figure in academic and policy-making circles.[4][5][9][41][42][43][44] Business Insider Politics Editor Pamela Engel has described Gorka as being "widely disdained within his own field. His own field is- according to the very first paragraphp of the article - is "military and intelligence analysis" This was questionned by professors AND policy-making cicles. This shows him in bad light.

The next paragraph deals with the criticism of professors (academic circles) - When I wrote that they are left wing professors, I wanted to refer to my debate with User:Snoogansnoogans and Volunteer MArek. I agree with You that it is a fact that two of his reviewers - at least according to Reynolds - had only BA-degrees. Reynolds did not name these two, so I can not check them. Whether Reynolds is left wing or pro-Clinton is irrelevant. Unfortunately, the abovementionned two editors deleted my edit that actually his third reviewer was a professor of the London School of Economics - it is a FACT as well- which undermines the argumentation of Mr. Reynolds a bit - giving balance. These editors replaced, and keep replacing the title "London School professor" with some rants from Mr. REynolds that he, the third reviewer, Mr. Schöpflin is some radical extremist. That is why I wanted to say that if Mr. Schöpflin is described with the title of "radical something" then it would be appropriate to mention that Reynolds is some kind of Pro-Clinton activist as well

The next paragraph is simply dealing with policy making circles. If the the first sentence of the Creditential section claims that he is refused by them as well, I can't find any reason to remove this statements of "policy makers". These are simply attached to the very same topic as the academic criticism. --Ltbuni (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no source for the claim that Schöpflin is a "former professor at LSE". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• If Schopflin earned a PhD before helping Gorka get one, it should be easy to verify this. Where and when was it awarded? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we are talking about different things. My problem is basically: why the oppinion of some policy-makers were removed because "this material has nothing to do with credentials". Why? Please elaborate. I argued for it. He was questionned by scholars and policy makers - it is the very first sentence of the subsection: Credentials. Why dropping the Policy makers, and why leaving only the Scholars in the text? I haven't read your arguments. Or anyone's.

You ask me how I know that Mr. Schöpflin had a phd. I don't understand what it has to do with the text deleted by You. But I answer to You: We know that he had a phd when he was a consultant or what for mr gorka, because a source, which was accepted as reliable one states that. It was in the text itself: According to Professor Reynolds " Two of the three referees did not even have a Ph.D. One was the U.S. Defense Attaché at the American Embassy in Budapest at the time, while the other was employed at the UK’s Defence Academy and just had a BA from Manchester University awarded in 1969. So, argumentum a contrario: on HAD a phd then. Please read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.785733" this whole quote is now NOT in the text, which is a shame - it makes the whole statement onesided. And who were the other referees? I don't know - Reynolds did not name them. Why? It would be embarassing if they are some high ranked professional politicans, so Mr Reynolds could not make such a fuzz? It would be Wikipedia:Cherrypicking: "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." We accept Reynolds when he wrote that gorka's phd is rubbish, but we "forget" to mention from the very same article that one referee is respected scholar with a dozen of books? That is exactly why I started the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive258#Sebastian_Gorka My concerns are in point 4.

Newertheless, the original article of the Haaretz still contains this - by now: deleted - text on the phd of Mr. Schöpflin. Reading the article, it was not very complicated to come to the conclusion that the third one - according to Prof Reynolds - is Mr. Schöpflin. There was an anonymus user, user Vectronn, I guess, who insisted on deleting Mr Schöpflin's phd title - but he did not present any reliable source which would underpin this, what is more, it contradicted the very own research of Mr Reynolds, a renowned professor, whose statements were from the very same article were taken as gospels when he smeared Gorka. Here is the version of Vectron: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sebastian_Gorka&diff=prev&oldid=797350053 I can not find footnotes there. Can You? We do do not accept wikipedia as a reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source So, I don't know what Vectronn meant. What is a bigger problem, and I wrote that many time, that Mr. Schöpflin WAS professor of different universities. BTW, this just strenghtens the fact, that he did earn a phd. The current version of the text is still trying to undermine Gorka's phd - because it simply omitts that small tiny little fact, that Mr. Schöpfin is not a nobody, who can be characterised only by "someone who published with Gorka" but was a professor of a very high ranked university, whose rank is a bit higher than some university of Nort Carolina --Ltbuni (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If Schoplin did earn a doctorate, simply provide reliable sources that state when and where he earned it. No need for a wall of text or piles of original research! MarkBernstein (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Have no idea what You're talking about.--Ltbuni (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. In response to your argument that policy-makers as well as academics questioned his credentials and therefore policy-makers need to be heard to defend it: no, they don't. Why? Because they are not competent to assess an academic thesis just because they work in government. Apples and oranges. In response to the third man's possible PhD: just because Reynolds had figured out that at least two of Gorka's thesis reviewers had no PhDs (and again, it does not matter what other jobs they may have held, politically-appointed posts have no bearing or relevance on their academic competetencies),to assert that because Reynolds said '2 out of 3' had no PhDs, therefore one did, is a syllogistic fallacy: you assume that the third one actually did in the absence of evidence. Reynolds reported what he did know, not what he didn't. For example, the third reviewer's doctorate could be honourary, like Bill Cosby's, but Reynolds did not know that at the time (perhaps he saw a signature saying 'Dr. So-and-so'), it doesn't matter what Reynolds said. You can't take A and B are C but D is n (unknown) to make D equal E (E being has a PhD). That is WP:SYNTH. And anyway, it really doesn't matter. The point of all this is, as it has been from the start, that at least two out of three people on that committee were not academically competent because all they had were BAs. FYI most academic thesis reviews/defences consist of three reviewers: two faculty members and an outside reviewer and all three of them have doctorates! Generally, outside reviewers are either people with equal competence in the field from another university, or else from a closely related field but from another faculty at your own university. If it's verifiable that two of his reviewers had no academic comptetence, then that's it. There's simply nothing more to be said in response to this. The President could say "it's a fine thesis, the greatest thesis ever, with lots of footnotes" and it would be irrelevant because he's not an academic authority in the field of the thesis. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to add: having a job as a "professor" anywhere also does not mean you have a PhD. Lots of people teach undergraduate courses without one, sometimes (rarely) without even a master's. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikipedia reports that George Schöpflin does not have a doctoral degree; he has an MA and LLB. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been noticed by others too [1]. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Ltbuni's version

OK, I think, everybody had the opportunity to make his/her remarks. I think this is getting out of controll, while this whole thing is much ado about nothing. So, I propose the following: 1. I would like to insert into the text, that and "one of the referees, George Schöpflin, former professor of London School of Economics had published with Gorka previously -- a breach of conventional academic practices."

2. I suggest the creation of another subsection in the "controversy" part, where we could reinsert the text which ZarhanFastfire deleted. It could be named as Support for Gorka or whatever.

3. The phd issue of Schöpflin is off topic here - he was a former professor, regardless of whether he had a phd or not. We could move this debate to the Bio of Schöpflin.

Do You agree or not or have other proposal?--Ltbuni (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You say "phd issue of Schopflin is off topic here" -- but you were the one pushing the notion that he had a PhD when he was an examiner for Gorka's "PhD", [2]. I assume we've seen the last of that, then? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted an unfounded edit, which was not footnoted / sourced properly. Please show me the footnote/source in the text You linked. The original article stated that "In Gorka’s case the only examiner who lists a doctorate was György Schöpflin" it is a citation from http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.785733 This very same source was used in the very same paragraph to smear Gorka. The phd-thing was inserted in the text by user Snoogansnoogans here, on 1th of May. User Vectroonnn or what brought up this whole issue first here on 10th of August!!!! and here and he got undone on both occasion by User:Snooganssnoogans here and here. Definitely I Was not the one who brought up this whole issue!!!! What is more I wrote my concerns about this whole issue in the previous paragraph on this Talk Page.

My problem is that Mr. Reynolds is presented in the text as professor, while Mr Schöpflin as some radical nationalist or what. But he was/is a professor as well. It is a proven fact. I even posted a NOTICE ON THE noticeboard of biographies of living persons see point 4. I pinged some editors as well... So not mentionning that Schöüflin is a prof is cherrypicking : "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. This applies both to quotations and to paraphrasings."

So, do You agree with my proposed version of the text or not, or have other options? --Ltbuni (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to add to the text that Schöpflin is a professor at the LSE, you need to source that (this is so simple, and has been explained to you). Also, I would like to reiterate that it's extremely difficult to follow your suggestions and reasoning, given that you seem incapable of understanding Wiki policy and norms, and that you frequently write long rambling essays when things don't go your way. This is presumably one reason why everyone's struggling to understand what you're proposing, and have little way of assessing whether some text of yours deserves to be added to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I pinged You to express Your oppinion. Why didn't You do there? So, basically, I can add that if I give You source? How about point 2.--Ltbuni (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can this or this or this be regarded as a reliable source concerning his professorship?

I also think that if we're going to add text that goes to the legitimacy of one of his committee members, we should also present the material that would undermine this legitimacy, specifically the ideological affinity between the two of them. Now, all of that seems a bit detailed -- so I'm just as content to leave it all out and simply note the co-publication. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I never said that I would cut out their connection. So, You are in support of me, if I give You source.--Ltbuni (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes -- if we also include the bit about wanting to put pig heads on the border to keep out Muslims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is it important here? No objection if You write this into his own Bio.This article is about Gorka, and not about how Mr. Schöpflin would "welcome" muslims --Ltbuni (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Does this really need explaining? The issue is the legitimacy of Gorka's "PhD" -- and so the suitability of the examiners is obviously relevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Did Schöpflin hold the title of Professor at the London School of Economics? According to Wikipedia, he was a Lecturer; we’d require a reliable source to say otherwise.MarkBernstein (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can this or this or this be regarded as a reliable source concerning his professorship?

This is getting off topic now. The only titles we should include in this articles are the ones mentioned in sources otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So it is a yes to point 1 if sourced?--Ltbuni (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can this or this or this be regarded as a reliable source concerning his professorship?

I meant that we can only mention his professorship on this page if it also mention Gorka, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. The sources look good enough for his own article though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions of text concerning the Reynolds-paragraph

I would like to ask the editors to present the text they propose - obviously, if anyone does not want any change, just write that the actual version can stay or whatever. --Ltbuni (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC) My version: "George Schöpflin, former professor of London School of Economics had published with Gorka previously -- a breach of conventional academic practices." In the footnotes: this and this and this as reliable sources concerning his professorship.

User:Emir of Wikipedia: For this page it is irrelevant if he was a former professor or not if a reliable source doesn't link it to Gorka. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:MarkBernstein: The only source that comes close to being reliable here is the LSE page for honorary or emeritus professors. It appears clear that Schöpflin was at one time a Lecturer, and that he (and perhaps others) are using “Professor” here as a courtesy title – a custom common in the United States but not, as I understand it, in Britain. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity:

User:Snooganssnoogans:

other users

(Comment and point of information)It would be considered very inappropriate for anyone below the rank of professor to use that title in Britain, but for all we know he has been given that title somewhere else. The practice is, as has been pointed out, virtually universal in the US and Canada too. Basically, what the British call a professor is called full professor in North America; while a reader is an associate professor and a lecturer is an assistant professor--Schopfling's title while he was at the LSE. There are still others: adjunct professor--no idea what that even is myself, or whether instructor even has an equivalent in the UK. But as I said above, job titles are irrelevant. His "professorship" is of no consequence. It doesn't mean anything in the sense of justifying his being on that committee. Basically, it's a red herring.

@User:Ltbuni Agree with above suggestions that you need to write more clearly and follow established norms of Wikipedia (and the English language: we don't write You for you, as they do in informal written German for example), and it's really bad form to make so much use of bold in those paragraphs that makes it look like you're screaming your head off (as do multiple !). It's off-putting to the point where even a determined reader is tempted to skip what you wrote and go straight to the responses. My advice, for what it's worth: Calm down.

"Breaking with academic conventions" does not begin to describe the situation. The lack of a single PhD on that committee is bad enough (very, very bad) but now one of them is revealed to have co-published with the aspiring doctoral candidate? Might as well have your own supervisor as your outside reader. That's conflict of interest, not breaking with convention. Hard to be objective about someone when you're sharing credit with that person elsewhere. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation and I appologize if i caused any trouble. I sent my remarks to the Bio Noticeboard.--Ltbuni (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Claim of Harvard Fellow Position

There is no evidence that a "Kokkalis Fellow" position ever existed at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the only references to the existence of such a position on the internet derive from or reference Gorka's autobiographical claim. Archived pages [3] from Harvard KSG at that time show that a scholarship program was offered under that name, which supported the pursuit of a Master's degree, which Gorka did not apparently receive. "The Socrates Kokkalis Program at Harvard University offers scholarships leading to a Master's degree in Public Policy or Public Administration..." A fellow position and a scholarship are distinct in academic parlance. A scholarship supports a student's tuition, whereas a fellow is typically a credentialed academic or otherwise qualified professional. It's unclear whether Gorka was ever enrolled in a Master's degree program at Harvard that such a scholarship would have supported, and no independent source even addresses that claim. Nevertheless, he does not claim to have a degree from Harvard. According to an archived page, the Kokkalis Program exclusively offered scholarships [4], and no fellow position is mentioned on any archived page. I therefore suggest editing the sentence associated with this credential claim.

References

Citations

and has ties to the alt-right.[6] The first citation is an opinion piece from WaPo. If you use an opinion piece as fact, you're going to lose credibility. The next three citations are all articles about Bannon with one or two lines of opinion and/or speculation added about Gorka. They're basically a rehash of the same unsubstantiated claims of "ties to the alt-right". That section is written more like a character assassination than a bio. I would really like to see

DknightInFV (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

... are more factual or solid citations/references. Gorka allegedly has ties to "Historical Vitézi Rend",but not to alt-right groups as suggested.

DknightInFV (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

---

(April 26 2018): Why is this sentence still in the article? It is based on opinion pieces and non relevant pieces.

“Various national security scholars in academic and policymaking circles have characterized Gorka as fringe.”

The above sentence is listed in your article. That is the very DEFINITION of “weasel words” nonsense. Please cite these “Various national security scholars in academic and policymaking circles”...

This is basic... Jepin81 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017

I am proposing a change to the career section. The first two sentences of the last paragraph should be moved up to the previous paragraph so that the timeline will be sequential. They should be moved so that they are after the fourth sentence of that third paragraph. The 2009 to 2013 dates would then be before the 2014 date that is mentioned in the fifth sentence of that third paragraph.

Also I am proposing that the last sentence of the last paragraph should be moved up to the previous paragraph for the same reason. It should be moved so that it is before the sixth sentence of that third paragraph. The 2014 to 2016 dates would then be before the August/2016 date that is mentioned in the sixth sentence of that third paragraph. Wikiperson777 (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible solutions

I have a possible solution to the dispute over inclusion of the innuendo from critics in Sebastian Gorka's biography. First, pull up fellow Hungarian born George Soros' wikipedia biography, which reads as if it was collaborated on by the man's mother and PR rep. Second, make sure that both Soros' and Gorka's biographies have the same tone and adherence to verification. If nothing that is not absolutely verified is allowed on Soros' page, then nothing that is not absolutely verified should be allowed on Gorka's page. If Gorka's page includes nazi conspiracy theories, then so should Soros' <redacted>. Adhere to the same principals for both biographies and the disputes should settle themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjekoken (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

George Soros has nothing to do with Sebastian Gorka, aside from the fact that Soros is a magnet for anti-Semites and a target for Nazis, and Gorka is sometimes supported by anti-Semites and Nazis. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hence the reason why users such as MarkBernstein fail to understand the problem with injecting innuendo into biographies. They have always, and will always, view anyone with opinions which differ from theirs as Nazis and Anti-semites. This is why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjekoken (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Activity 1992 - 1995

The article claims that Gorka worked at the Hungarian Ministry of Defense commencing 1992. Only one source is provided and that is to a Hungarian language news service which does not appear to be a reliable source. Given that there is a suspicion that Gorka himself (or someone close) edits at this article, I feel there ought to be better sourcing. It's noteworthy I think that Gorka's LinkedIn entry, which is otherwise very detailed, doesn't list it as a position held, and in fact there is a gap in his CV 1992 - 1995.

The period in question coincides with the Bosnian Civil War. Any sources linking Gorka with that? 209.160.121.72 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The existing Hungarian Spectrum citation is a source. Gorka did not come to prominence in Hungary until 2001 (as a television personality) and sources for his activity before that ultimately devolve to him or family or friends. The Ministry of Defense claim is scarcely credible, as the Spectrum piece notes, and it's not surprising it's not repeated in his LinkedIn profile.The most likely scenario is that he was simply living with his parents while establishing himself. 86.164.23.239 (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Poorly sourced personal details violate WP:BLP

Gorka's birth date and parental history were sourced by primary sources (a vague apparent reference to court records) and an unreliable database ([5], which states "We make no warranty whatsoever as to the accuracy or completeness of the FreeBMD data") in violation of WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Unless these facts are widely reported in reliable sources, they should be removed immediately." Thus, I have removed the poorly sourced info. Even if true, they violate WP:BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please remove "Category:American neo-nazis"

Look, it's one thing to put the quotes and the accusations of ties to historical Nazism. However, this page should be removed from the official category. This is a serious smear and surely not up to Wikipedia's standards for categorization without legitimate confirmation. Hardloop (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Some citations might be useful

Obviously I'm not going to edit ... but this section

During his time in the Trump administration, Gorka gave a series of combative interviews with the press in which he defended the administration's positions on national security and foreign policy. Various national security scholars in academic and policymaking circles have characterized Gorka as fringe. Some critics have challenged his academic credentials, his views on Islam and radicalization—as well as his motives for identifying with the Order of Vitéz or supporting the EU-banned Hungarian Guard.

has zero citations and seems somewhat lacking in NPOV as a result. You guys sort it out.

119.18.15.193 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This paragraph is in the lede, and the lede is intended to be a summary of the body of the article. This information is thoroughly supported at Sebastian Gorka#Controversy with dozens of citations. Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

2601:248:8300:3C30:8178:B16A:7A56:95B9 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Typical Wikipedia left-wing hatchet job.

Gorka on Fox News' 'hard news' programming

A sentence sourced to The Daily Beast[6] about Gorka's 'ban' from Fox News' hard news programming was deleted with the justification "Removing per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:CRYSTAL - this is not encyclopedic content, it's gossip"[7]. Again, the content is reliably sourced and is helpful to readers, as it makes clear that Gorka appears on Fox's opinion shows, but not its hard news programs. This is an important distinction. At the very least, the content could be attributed to The Daily Beast. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a rewrite perhaps? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Maybe "Gorka is a frequent contributor on Fox News' opinion shows. According to multiple sources in The Daily Beast, Gorka does not appear on Fox News' 'hard news' programming, as he is not considered a credible expert". At the very least, the Wikipedia article needs to note that he frequently appears on Fox News' opinion-shows. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Other than stating he appears on Fox News shows from time to time as a guest contributor, I don't see how saying he's not on "hard news" programming is going to enlighten readers or improve the article. We should keep it simple, factual, and to the point. In other words, keep it encyclopedic. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The source says that he is not on "hard news"/"straight news", this is not something added by an editor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I missed the distinction. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this content going to get re-added or what? No substantive reason has been presented why for why we should not note that Gorka appears on Fox News' opinion shows but not its hard news shows. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Media A Smear Production Factory

below is an excerpt from an article regarding some of the articles subject matter. This might be good information to reference...

"One only need look at the case of Sebastian Gorka to see just how far and how petty the media has gone to act as the enforcer of the administrative state. Some in the intelligence community and partisan bureaucracy viewed Gorka unfavorably, resulting in an organized campaign in the press against him."

"The magazine Forward began running poorly sourced articles tying Gorka to a Hungarian order of merit called the Vitézi Rend, which, during World War II, had factions that supported the Hungarian dictator Horthy, the Imperial House of Habsburg, and the Nazi party. Despite no clear evidence, Forward labeled Gorka, in essence, a Nazi. The media ran with that narrative, bolstered by activist campaigns by partisans of the Democratic Party and those opposed to Gorka in the intelligence community."

"In truth, the real objection to Gorka was his view of Islam as a civilizational confrontation and of radical Islam as a hostile force against the West. There as yet remains no evidence of Gorka or his father being tied to the Nazi party in any way — yet that did not stop journalists from surmising on social media that Gorka’s immigration to the United States and status as a U.S. citizen should have been blocked and should be revoked."

Contents of the rest of the artical may be usefull for theDeep State wiki artical as well..Bought the farm (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

References

The Federalist is not a WP:RS. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian Gorka's official website

Can someone put www.sebgorka.com on here? --2001:8003:4181:4A00:4D2B:AC9C:5456:63A2 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Great idea. Go ahead! Please Be bold here! Don't worry if you make a mistake; someone will fix it. DougHill (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

I think the nationality as listed in the lede is inaccurate and possibly misleading. Gorka isn't British born, he is a British citizen and has been since birth. He has been an Anglo-Hungarian for 49 years. He was educated in the UK and served in the British military. He has only held additional US citizenship since 2012. It seems clear that his British and Hungarian citizenship are the most important to highlight as he has held them both since birth. He is as British as he is Hungarian. There are several ways this could be expressed.

- Sebastian Lukács Gorka is an Anglo-Hungarian military and intelligence analyst who became a naturalised US citizen in 2012 - Sebastian Lukács Gorka is a British/Hungarian/American military and intelligence analyst - Sebastian Lukács Gorka is a military and intelligence analyst who holds British, Hungarian and US citizenship

Sue De Nimes (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Seconded, Gorka was born, educated in the UK and even joined the UK territorial army; he should I believe therefore be credited as "Anglo American", or if his parentage affords him Hungarian citizenship, then credit him "Anglo/Hungarian American", but clearly his primary citizenship was British, and since 2012 is now US. Indieshack (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

== I agree with the previous comment. The information on Gorka's background is totally confusing. The page says nothing about how he supposedly became a naturalized US citizen. Update this page with this information. It's disturbing that this page exists with information that presently is obviously questionable. 113.53.156.143 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Update on how this man became a 'naturalized' citizen?

This person's page shows absolutely no logical reason why this person should have been considered for natualization. Did he get special treatment at some point? The page shows no connection to the US other than his marrying an America woman prior to his recieving citizenship in 2007. There must be more background information about him. Please update. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Spouses of US citizens qualify for permanent resident status as immediate relatives. They may become naturalized citizens after three years as a permanent resident. https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization/naturalization-spouses-us-citizens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.118.108 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a very minor correction the previous comment which otherwise looks good, "They may become naturalized citizens after three years as a permanent resident" I would just correct to "They may apply to become naturalized citizens after three years as a permanent resident". I know. semantics but it's possibly relevant in the broader picture since Dr. Gorka would have needed to actively apply for citizenship based on being the husband of a US citizen, then pass the citizen's test - it's not a passive process that automatically occurs after three years. Indieshack (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Gorka did not support "the EU-banned Hungarian Guard" but the NON-banned Hungarian Guard

I understand why some people desire to paint Gorka in a bad light, but I more strenuously object to factual misrepresentation. The last sentence of the intro ends by alleging that Gorka is supporting a banned organization, which he has never done: "Some critics have challenged his . . . supporting the EU-banned Hungarian Guard." The sentence uses a present tense participle with an ongoing, durative sense; i.e., it says that he is now supporting a banned organization. But Gorka did not support a banned organization; two years before it was banned, he gave limited support overtly withholding support for its questionable leadership. Yet propagandists would benefit from misinforming people with the untruthful implication that Gorka supported a banned organization, so the sentence saying it would be defended without concern for truthfulness. I made a very minor edit correcting the incorrect assertion: "supporting the Hungarian Guard years before the EU-banned it." But this correction of an error was immediately undone by User Snooganssnoogans, who seems to have requested an entry on this talk page even though I had explained the simple issue of removing false information by making it correct. So I want the sentence to be corrected so that it no longer falsely says that a banned organization is being (or ever has been) supported by Gorka. Even though it is not sexy enough for those desiring a juicy slur, it is only correct to say that Gorka supported a group with a caveat two years before it was banned. Olorin3k (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The article could certainly use some clarification on the Hungarian Guard info. The introduction states that critics have challenged his motives, but then the actual section about the Guard doesn't say anything about either his motives or critics. It simply transcribes parts of the video and states that the group was banned, specifying that it was after Gorka left the country. Either some statements from prominent critics should be added to the section, or the statement should be removed from the intro. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I would think the negative info in a place of prominence at the end of the intro could remain if it were changed to become accurate. I'm considering augmenting it to something like "his . . . having supported the Hungarian Guard later banned by the EU" or "the later-EU-banned Hungarian Guard." Allowing critics to prominently disinform, however, should not be allowed unchallenged on Wiki. So how would a more balanced editor resist tyrannical, immediate undoing of his corrections by another editor apparently not concerned with disinforming about someone like Gorka? Olorin3k (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith rather than assuming other editors are trying to misinform, as that is not the goal of most editors. You don't know their reasoning, although it certainly doesn't help that they haven't bothered to respond here. Snooganssnoogans, you reverted an edit with no explanation and requested that someone go to talk, which they've done, and you haven't responded in the three weeks since. That's pretty bad form. Please give a reply. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not mind changing the language to "support for the Hungarian Guard (which was ultimately banned by Hungary, a decision upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, due to the group's racist activities)". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the intro should be short, and the tenuous link with racism that you want to feature is dealt with later in the body, I think the intro should just be my original edit that you immediatley reverted: "supporting the Hungarian Guard years before the EU-banned it."Olorin3k (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This is absurdly wrong. The ECHR is NOT an EU organisation - it's entirely independent from it. Forty countries are signed up to the ECHR, the EU comprises only 27 member countries in total.

A Hungarian tribunal banned the Hungarian Guard. The Guards (or whatever they call themselves) appealed the Trinunal's decision to the ECHR as a possible violation of their (the Guards') human rights. THe ECHR upheld the Tibunal's decision (i.e. no human rights violation).

To claim some form of 'EU ban' here is false; in view of the similarity of this falsehood to anti-EU propaganda deployed to manipulate the UK's Brexit referendum, it's probably also a deliberate fabrication2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:2883:DC6:2741:9412 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

False claims regarding bomb attack on mosque

In an August 2017 interview with MSNBC, Gorka claimed a bomb attack on a Minnesota mosque could have been a false flag operation by unspecified "leftists." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/trump-official-gorka-derided-mosque-attack-claim-170809071507801.html

Two of the perpetrators pled guilty to the attack in January 2019. They were members of a right-wing militia group. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46999849

Suggest adding this information to the article in light of reports Gorka may be taking a leadership role at the Voice of America. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/media/voice-of-america-top-officials-resign/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.118.108 (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, saying that you want this added because he may be hired to a political post makes it sound like your suggestion is politically motivated rather than in the interest of improving Wikipedia, so you've already lessened the chances of this getting added. Also, any attempt by us to conclude that Gorka got this wrong by combining information from the two sources would be clear-cut WP:SYNTH. I'm not saying we can't use any of this information in the article, but pretty certainly not in the form you're looking for. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Liberal edits

It needs to be noted that the negative reports about this man are from Liberals who dislike his politics. These are not fair edits and WIKIPEDIA needs to make note of this! I try to edit but am blocked. I support WIKI monthly but I’m evaluating my support. Ritakc (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Change:- "and received a lower second-class honours (2:2) Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy and theology from Heythrop College, of the University of London."

To:- "and received a lower second-class honours (2:2) Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy and theology from Heythrop College, which was a constituent college of the University of London for 47 years before it formally terminated operations on 31 January 2019."

Ref:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heythrop_College,_University_of_London 73.63.182.46 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not related to Gorka himself. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead

I have some issues with the following sentence in the current lead: "Gorka has written for a variety of publications, is politically conservative[6][7] and has ties to the alt-right,[8][9] though he rejects the term, calling it "bogus" and "a new label for nationalists or irredentist bigots".[10]"

• First off: The way it is phrased makes it sound like he rejects merely the term, whereas I guess he would also reject having ties...

I just went through the video... The exact wording is: "I don't even like the word "alt-right". It's bogus, I think those are just... that's a new label for nationalists or bigots. (...) They're rewrapping themselves to be salonfähig to be fit for polite company. They are just racists." I would say this makes it pretty clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgarAllanFrost (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• The source provided for this rejection is an interview by Gorka himself on a youtube talk show... I doubt that this qualifies as a reliable source.
• Most importantly: I fail to see how this is not a case of Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. I think there are reliable sources reporting it, so the verbatim quote by Gorka in the lead seems like a perfect example of "undue emphasis of expected denial".

I would suggest either outright deleting the second half of the sentence or at the very least getting rid of the verbatim quotes (the latter would also solve the first issue).

EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: in January 2022 Gorka sued to block a subpoena for his phone records related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

Addition of criminal vehicular operation involving his Mustang ‘art war’. Proof of evidence will be submitted once edit owes missions are granted SunGodNeverForgets (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

Under the sections "Politics" the first word is a typo of the name. It says "Gora" and it should say "Gorka". Dheberer (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 09:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Using opinionated editorials as citations

Need better citations to make such broad overarching claims. OP-Ed pieces should not be used in this context. It’s completely speculative and opinion rooted. Citation in reference is 10.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/08/10/why-is-sebastian-gorka-still-in-the-white-house-because-trump-loves-his-tv-performances/ 2603:8000:3F01:90CD:F84D:81C8:42B0:C1BD (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions

Expansion on who his parents were and particularly his dad would be helpful in the early life section. His dad was a spy who was tortured? Wrote a memoir? Also, his father's name is spelled in an Americanized version is much of the article but in Hungarian in another section. Perhaps we can note the alternative spellings and go with one or the other?

My other suggestion is to include more on his views on Israel. He is accused of affiliations with far-right groups but he also is noted and has supporters among Jews and Israelis for his support for the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and for his stand against radical Islamic threats. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

He's a radical extremist

Fuck this guy! 24.139.40.116 (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris ... "only Qualification was having a vagina and the right skin color"

Edit ...

Kamala Harris ... "only Qualification was having a vagina and the right skin color"

https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/morally-reprehensible-sebastian-gorka-sparks-furious-backlash-after-disgusting-kamala-harris-remark/video_d9138c25-c9e9-5b54-9360-45bc79b051bd.html 98.46.117.0 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Protesters in or near the January 6 United States Capitol attack

Could be added to this category based on These people have been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 panel. "Gorka said he was at the Ellipse on Jan. 6 and listened to Trump’s speech “as one spectator among many,” before leaving." Faolin42 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Fortnight?

Under the Early life and education section, the text: While at university, Gorka joined the British Territorial Army as a volunteer (typically committing to a weekend a month and a fortnight's annual camp)

The "fortnight" part should be replaced with "two weeks each year" or "annual two week camp". The goal isn't to be poetic, but instead be clear. Some English speakers may not understand what a fortnight is. (ie: those who speak it as a second language, young readers, or anyone more familiar with US English rather than UK English) 14.1.65.137 (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)