Talk:Chris Krebs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Preceded by??

Chris Krebs's title was Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, he was the first person with that title. George Foresman may have had the virtually the same job, but George Foresman never had the title Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Therefore George Foresman should not be listed as his predecessor for the title Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. It is factually inaccurate to state George Foresman was the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. James Forrestal became the first secretary of defense and was not preceded by Kenneth Royall because he was the secretary of war.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Chris Krebs bio on the CISA website says that he is the first director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)https://www.cisa.gov/christopher-c-krebs. Yousef Raz (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh????? You’ve got to be kidding, right? Just because something is given a new title doesn’t mean all history is erased. If you can find reliable, secondary sources that back up your statements, then the facts should be changed, but for now, he has predecessors. Here’s an analogy: if I am the CEO of a company, and one day the title of "CEO" gets changed to "CEOO" (just an example), that doesn’t suddenly make me the first CEO of the company just because the name was changed. Technically, I am the first CEOO since the name change, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t suddenly have no predecessors. They were all CEOs and so was I, for a period of time, so the chronology doesn’t change, only the title. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Im not kidding. No one is calling for history to be erased. Chris Krebs's was First Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. If you can find reliable, secondary sources that back up predecessor with that title then the article should be changed but for now he has no predecessor. This is supported by the Washington Post. Besides Secretary of War to Secretary of Defense, here's analogy, you are the CEO of company A, you merge with company B to become company C. You were the last CEO of company A and now you are the first CEO of company C. You are free to create an article for Chris Krebs's previous agency. See Lee Raymond. He is the last CEO of Exxon and the first CEO of ExxonMobile. Also see George Clinton, he's listed as the first governor of New York but there were actually governors before him List of colonial governors of New York.Yousef Raz (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Another example is Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and Porter GossYousef Raz (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Matthew Travis Resignation

Per https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-fires-chris-krebs-top-cybersecurity-official-in-department-of-homeland-security-11605659868#:~:text=Mr.%20Krebs'%20deputy%2C%20Matthew,familiar%20with%20the%20matter%20said.&text=Mr.%20Wales%20is%20a%20career,White%20House%20to%20remove%20him, Krebs's firing largely triggered another resignation, this one by Matthew Travis. I'm not sure - does this kind of thing belong in the article? The firing of Chris Krebs and the resignation of Matthew Travis are in a largely cause-effect relationship; should we add this? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

My take would be that the 2020 election and fallout merits its own section (under career?) where that information would be appropriate. But it's not a tight enough coupling that it should be placed in the "top level" career section. --146.115.188.127 (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The resignation if there was one must be in the Wall Street Journal article. Nothing is said in the Wikipedia article itself about Matthew Travis other than he was the Deputy to Christopher Cox Krebs in the "Cybersecurity and Infrastucture Security Agency". Did you edit Matthew Travis out of the Wiki article? hhhobbit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have semi-protected access, so I haven't edited anything. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Bio Updates

I don't think linkedin is an acceptable source? But it would be nice to find a source that he earned his JD in 2007 and I'd additionally note the name of the school at the time something like `Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University (then known as ...)` or `George Mason University School of Law (later renamed to ...)`, my preference would be the second since that would reflect what the degree would say and any publications at the time. --146.115.188.127 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I pulled some details from this source, which contains biographical information, and added those dates to the relevant section. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

LinkedIn is fine as a source for basic biographical information. See WP:ABOUTSELF. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Disregard.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words regarding election fraud

"In November 2020, President Donald Trump fired Krebs for contradicting Trump on the prevalence of election fraud in the 2020 presidential elections." - This should be more strongly worded in light of Trump's baseless allegations being disproven time and time again. 99.74.177.187 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

And yet everything Trump says is accurate. You can stop now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9F90:2EA0:C99B:4313:C517:80FE (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

The reason Stated for the dismissal of Chris Krebs has not been fact checked and is misleading or disinformation. 172.93.153.151 (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This tweet supports the statement that Krebs was fired for contradicting Trump and could be cited: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328852354049957888 --146.115.188.127 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --TheImaCow (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Contradict vs. Inaccurate

The Lede says: President Donald Trump fired Krebs for contradicting Trump on the prevalence of election fraud in the 2020 presidential elections.

The Article says: Trump declared in the tweet that he was firing Krebs because "The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud, including dead people voting, Poll Watchers not allowed into polling locations, “glitches” in the voting machines which changed votes from Trump to Biden, late voting, and many more. Therefore, effective immediately, Chris Krebs has been terminated as Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Trump gives his reasons clearly. Why does the Article presume to "contradict" the President who fired him, and replaced the President's clearly and explicitly stated reasons for someone else's (who didn't fire Krebs). Krebs was fired for making a statement that was "highly inaccurate". It's simple and it's obvious. Why is Wikipedia injecting it's own opinion and replacing the President's, who actually did the firing. Trump is known for firing people. "You're fired." He's a professional fire-r. You'd think the guy that made his reputation by firing people would have earned the right to have his statements for WHY he's fired someone taken at face-value, not 2nd guessed and "contradicted" by some no-name nobody. He's the President of the United States, and everyone that works for him serves at his (term of art here) "pleasure", meaning he can fire them for any reason he wants. Because he doesn't like their socks. Whatever. If he says it's for being "inaccurate" then that's why he did it. No need for the fake news or the Chinese Communists rewrite history even while it's happening.

2605:6000:6FC0:25:681C:395:EC3B:52E9 (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Because we follow the reliable sources. even Fox News understands that this firing was a result of Krebs' attempts to "rebut the president's claims of widespread voter fraud". The NYT concurs. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand this rant. If you were to state he was fired for making an inaccurate statement, that would validate the claim by the president that the statement was inaccurate. He was clearly fired for making what Donald Trump considered to be an inaccurate statement. But this is the same as being fired for contradicting the president. It's unreasonable to think Wikipedia will treat the statements Donald Trump makes on twitter to be purely factual. Palehose5 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)