Talk:Stefan Halper/Archive 1

Archive 1

Superior Honor Award

The Defense Department’s Superior Honor Award isn't listed on Wikipedia. Can we fact check this, and change either this page or that one? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:68.46.226.6

User:68.46.226.6 has engaged in edit warring, as evidenced by the following four diffs:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

In my own corresponding edit summaries, I have explained that his sources are unacceptable.

• The Daily Caller does not identify Halper as the accused FBI inside informant.
• Zero Hedge is a blog, not WP:RS.
• The Washington Post does not mention Halper.

If User: 68.46.226.6 continues edit warring, and refusing to discuss this as I have asked in my edit summaries, I plan to report this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. KalHolmann (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to malign Wikipedia's reputation

Following the 11 May 2018 vandalism of Stefan Halper by User: 201.195.126.8, right-wingers have used the Internet to impugn Wikipedia's reputation. Their charge is that after publishing the explosive revelation that Halper had "been exposed as a CIA and M-16 [sic] spy behind the FBI Russiagate investigations of the Trump Campaign and is an informant to the Mueller Special Prosecutor investigation," Wikipedia then "quickly deleted" it. The implication is that some intrepid editor had dared to post the damning truth about Stefan Halper being a spy and informant, only to have Wikipedia's government shills swiftly suppress it.

• The first attempt to spread this on Twitter came just 16 minutes after Wikipedia was vandalized.
• Eighty minutes later another tweet appeared, this from Paul Sperry, a Washington D.C.-based investigative journalist and Hoover Institution media fellow. To Sperry, the content stood as an "interesting recent addition to STEFAN A HALPER's Wikipedia page."
• Next D.C.-based conservative JW Watch tweeted, "WIKIPEDIA REMOVES HALPER INFORMANT TEXT: Although this doesn't mean everything it's curious how quickly this was taken down." (Actually, as Wikipedia vandalism goes, it was not taken down quickly at all, remaining live online more than 5½ hours.)
• In the blogosphere, Tyler Durden screen-capped the above tweet from "The New York Post′s Paul Sperry," wrongly insinuating that Sperry had tweeted in his capacity as an occasional op-ed writer at The Post. Durden also repeated the falsehood that the content had been "quickly deleted."
  

I add this background to alert editors that the field of play has shifted from social media to Wikipedia itself. In addition to the four edits by User: 68.46.226.6 enumerated in the preceding section of this Talk page, there have been multiple attempts by other editors to add the same or similar unsourced and therefore libelous content to our BLP.

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8] (added 02:48 14 May 2018‎)
• [9] (added 22:57 14 May 2018)
• [10] (added 02:28 18 May 2018)
  

Editors should beware these efforts to, in effect, restore a vandalized and venomous version of Stefan Halper. KalHolmann (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Upshot. On 15 May 2018, due to persistent vandalism, Stefan Halper was semi-protected for one week. KalHolmann (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

And as per chuck Ross's article dated March 25, 2018 in the Daily Caller and subsequent leaks from the MSM Stefan Halper is the CIA mole sent to spy on the Trump Campaign 2601:245:8001:796B:2847:7C5E:479C:1FC2 (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Degrees

I believe it is likely that PhD Halper received in 2004 from Cambridge should be identified as one for which he qualified "by incorporation." That is, since he earned a DPhil from Oxford in 1971, when he became associated in a formal way with Cambridge, he will automatically have received the equivalent of his highest degree from Oxford (or TCD, but that's not relevant here). Since the PhD is the equivalent of DPhil, he will have been presented with the PhD by incorporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.27.82 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Info on Halper's role in Trump campaign needs inclusion

I just visited the Stefan Halper page to learn more about Halper's role in the Trump campaign and the FBI investigation into alleged Russian collusion. But despite the recent media flurry about Halper's alleged role as an FBI informant who fished for dirt on Trump campaign advisors, I was surprised to see that there is no mention at all of Halper's involvement. While Halper's role as an FBI informant on the Trump campaign has yet to be officially confirmed by the FBI, DOJ, or Congress, there is reliable sourced information that sufficiently documents Halper's connection to several Trump campaign advisors, including George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

The following passage from a March 2018 Daily Caller article lays out the connection between Halper and Papadopoulos, a target and key witness in the Mueller investigation:

Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered – and he would accept – during the presidential campaign.

The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

Halper's September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn't his only contact with Trump campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations, met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned.

Papadopoulos now questions Halper's motivation for contacting him, according to a source familiar with Papadopoulos's thinking. That's not just because of the randomness of the initial inquiry but because of questions Halper is said to have asked during their face-to-face meetings in London.

According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Halper asked Papadopoulos: "George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?"

Papadopoulos told Halper he didn't know anything about emails or Russian hacking, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign. The professor did not follow up on the line of inquiry.

Halper first contacted Papadopoulos by email. In a Sept. 2, 2016, message sent to Papadopoulos's personal email account, he offered the Trump aide $3,000 to write a policy paper on issues related to Turkey, Cyprus, Israel and the Leviathan natural gas field. Halper also offered to pay for Papadopoulos's flight and a three-night stay in London.

There is no legitimate reason to keep this information out of the Stefan Halper article. Attempts to prevent the inclusion of sourced information about Halper's role in the Trump campaign is either POV pushing or outright censorship. MiamiManny (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• MiamiManny, your allegation that Wikipedia editors at Stefan Halper have made "attempts to prevent the inclusion of sourced information about Halper's role in the Trump campaign" due to "either POV pushing or outright censorship" is unfounded. Please provide diffs as evidence of your charge. KalHolmann (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:KalHolmann, the way you're acting could easily be seen by a newbie as pushing POV and censorship. Please put some of your great energy into improving the article rather than acting as a gatekeeper. Clearly, User:68.46.226.6 is unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing policies, and is trying to come up with better sources and improve the section that obviously *does* need to be written. The appropriate thing to do is correct errors, add better citations, and generally improve the material. Instead, what we observe is continual removal of both content and good sources. AGREED: the Wikipedia content needs to be improved. Yet User:MiamiManny is correct. Let's stop trying to hide what is obviously out there. Mr Pete (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is my assessment of this series of edits, beginning with the first edit (NOT by KalHolmann), which WAS an appropriate removal of unsourced information. Those who have been following the story knew that it came from the WP:RS Daily Caller:

[11] (Identifies Halper as CIA/MI6, connected to FBI efforts, and to Mueller. But unsourced and appropriate to remove.)

[12] (Gives reference for Halper CIA/MI6 connection, but discusses FBI instead of CIA/MI6. KalHolmann removes, understandably not yet noticing that the reference IS a good ref for the previous info.)

[13] (This reverted edit contains several good links, but the actual WP content is incorrect. Rather than edit, KalHolmann removed the content and links. The Daily Caller link is good citable information. Probably the best current place to start in describing Halper's known involvements. There's also a LOT of good information in the ZeroHedge article, including further citable sources... but it's not clear to me that ZeroHedge is WP:RS)

[14] (KalHolmann removes content that fails to cite WP:RS. Actually it DOES cite, just not in the proper format. The more serious problem is that it's a cite loop, simply going back to WP :) )

[15] (To put it nicely, this was a well-written summary that may someday become a valid paragraph. However, it doesn't cite anybody and contains a number of assertions that aren't known to be factual.)

[16] (Finally. On May 19th, a WP:RS specifically names Halper as FBI informant.)

(A lot of good new info is added...)

[17] ('A *very* questionable KalHolmann reversion.' Claims The Daily Caller is not WP:RS. Please provide facts to support this assertion. Claims [www.govtribe.com] is not WP:RS -- that's a database of government contractors. What evidence that it is unreliable?)

Bottom line from my perspective: KalHolmann appears to have an animus toward The Daily Caller. I believe the last KalHolmann reversion should be undone, and that the early DCNF reference to CIA and MI6 links should also be restored with appropriate content. Mr Pete (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is a partisan blog. It is not a reliable source of information. 2601:1C0:6D02:27C0:E915:22A2:F9C7:5054 (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:talk:2601:1C0:6D02:27C0:E915:22A2:F9C7:5054, please provide factual information to support your assertion, because it is provably false. See the Daily Caller article.Mr Pete (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

Currently reads: But now, as a result of some very odd choices by the nation’s largest media outlets, everyone knows the name of the FBI’s informant: Stefan Halper.

This is a biased statement and it includes opinion. Please change it to the FBI informant is Stefan Halper. Bearinoc (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose this change. The text is not Wikipedia's opinion. It is a direct verbatim quotation from a WP:RS. KalHolmann (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with this change, but needs a reference. This is clearly fact, from several sources. DailyCaller is a RS, in my opinion (but we need to vote on this as editors). They have editorial oversight, and correct errors (they say). They are not an unbiased source, but according to Wikipedia rules, this is fine as long as they are reporting facts. Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Request Consensus from other editors

I had an edit deleted because Daily Caller is not considered RS (Although I agree that another reference I used with primary, not secondary).

I read through the RS requirements, and it says that a website that has editorial control from known authors, it is generally a RS. The NYT has published many details, but withheld the name, so the DailyCaller has the most reliable reporting.

Please vote on how to proceed. Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

'Obviously, The Daily Caller is a WP:RS.' Read the Wikipedia entry. Read their About page. They are a credentialed news organization with a paid full-time reporting staff. Articles are signed; they have a policy of publishing corrections. Mr Pete (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Mother Jones and The New York Post are now both including Stefan Halper's name so jsut switch to the those sources. Also I've added back in the gov't payouts to Halper citing a US gov't website so that is good to go as well.--Tom Villars 01:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree with "just switch to those sources." This introduces citation POV. The Daily Caller is just as reliable as Mother Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Pete (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course the media is reporting Halper was the embeded spy. Here is yet another source: [18] . Wikipedia looks pretty silly trying to censor what has been obvious and public knowledge for days now. As I see the first edits on this, it had said "in some circles", "some sources," etc. There was nothing wrong with that. Now it has become *an abundance* of sources, soon it will be *an overabundance* of sources and Wikipedia's censorship will look even dumber still. Bruno SanMartino (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Observation: Two editors have commented on this thread, and neither has mentioned The Daily Caller. As a polite reminder, I suggest we keep to the topic at hand. Is or is not The Daily Caller a WP:RS? Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Observation: If editors prefer a different souce be used in any article on Wikipedia they are free to change the source rathar than starting an edit war. It takes 2 to war obviously. It would seem a war begins with the very first revert not the second. The trick is to apply more sources not wholesale rejections based on pet peves with certain sources. Where would we be if editors ran pell-mell through Wikipedia deleting all additions that cited the New York Times because of their loss of credibility over the Jayson Blair matter? Now that there are an abundnce of sources on this it's well past time to stop embarrassing Wikipedia with what is actually an ongoing edit war albeit using different tactics in a different field of battle. Bruno SanMartino (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Please help: All the other sources cite Daily Caller. That makes them tertiary sources. This is a biography of a living person, and we are supposed to build consensus. The news is fresh, so there is no rush, but we do not want Wikipedia to appear biased by underreporting.Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Request Consensus On Adding FBI Informant to Occupation

My edit to add FBI Informant to Halper's Occupation was undone. Since the opening paragraph includes "Years later, he would serve as an FBI operative, monitoring the 2016 Donald Trump Presidential campaign." stating he was an FBI informant is uncontroversial except for possibly he should be labelled a spy as his intentions were harmful.--Tom Villars 03:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither Neutral Nor RS

Clearly the quote added from the anti-Republican editorial screed in the highly biased source "The Intercept" clearly violates Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and reliability. Do we really need to keep embarrassing Wikipedia on this article?? Bruno SanMartino (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A WP:SET shows most of the same-conclusion sources are likewise fringe. — Safety Cap (talk)

I disagree. His occupation is neither spy nor informant, even if he was paid for this. I think it takes stronger evidence. It is factual to say he was a paid informant of the US government, although the FBI part is not firmly established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe his occupation is likely both given the reportage. However, it is improper to call him either at this moment. He should be called a "covert paid FBI operative" until his role has been properly settled. The article should also include the fact President Trump has said he will order an investigation of the FBI to determine Hafner's precise role and determine if that role was legal use of taxpayer money and government agencies. That this article is still bringing up the real well behind national media is part of its history of continuing to act as an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Bruno SanMartino (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Should we Overhaul this Article?

Guys, this thing is a mess. It's like that Always Sunny meme where Charlie's struggling with a conspiracy theory. Should we (can I at least) take out the redundancies, at put it in order? I can do this with or without an editors consensus, but having a few thumbs up would be nice.

Abattoir666 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Good thinking :-D ... I just finished reorganizing. I did not find much in the way of redundancy, other than between the intro summary vs details. There were definite issues with keeping his career in chronological order. It required very little actual content change; just a lot of rearranging. Mr Pete (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• It is a mess. You have my vote of confidence to overhaul it as needed. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 16:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)