Talk:Dishonorable Disclosures/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lead section

Can the lead be crafted to comply with NPOV as far as the wording goes? --Mollskman (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe add the material about the groups alledged political ties under reception or maybe a new section about politics, ect. --Mollskman (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It was neutral before editors started inserted cruft about OPSEC's politics. People need to remember this article is about the film, not the organization that created it. Belchfire-TALK 16:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're rewriting history here. The text about OPSEC's Republican ties have been in there for more than a week, including edits by yourself, before it was reverted by IP. That implies there was consensus for it to be there, and removing it is clearly not in consensus.

But that's not really the point. We're talking about a film that's part of a political ad campaign released in the middle of a US Presidential election. The partisan background of the group is at least as relevant as the military background. If we're going to start the lede talking about how some of them are former Spec Ops then it seems quite POV to omit the (clearly relevant and cited) fact that some of them are affiliated with the Republican party. Glaucus (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's only been in the article for a week, I'm not sure there is really any "consensus" either way to include or exclude the political ties. I agree, however, that the political background of the group is at least as relevant as the military background given that the video is being purposely marketed in swing states during the culminating months of the 2012 presidential election. We should probably either include both the political and military backgrounds, or exclude both, depending on what a consensus of editors think is best. However, any material added needs to closely adhere to what reliable sources say about the political/military backgrounds/ties, so that we're not engaging in OR or synthesis. What do others think? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no "implied consensus", that's just nonsense. And besides, consensus can change. The problem we run into here is that some editors try to introduce political POV in such a way as to impugn OPSEC's credibility, which is clearly non-neutral. The career background info is neutral and factual, and ties directly to the content of the film, so it's easier to make a case for it's inclusion. Belchfire-TALK 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, the content of reliable independent sources should determine content. If such sources make credible note of political affiliations of the film's makers or participants, then that's acceptable content for this article about the film. Of course, all editors should refrain from inserting personal opinions, personal inferences, and original research. RCraig09 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Material concerning the political affiliations of the film's producers should go in the article about the film's producers, don't you think? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Belchfire-TALK 20:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If reliable independent sources talk about political affiliations of the filmmakers in relation to the film, then such affiliations are proper content both for the article about the filmmakers and the article about the film. RCraig09 (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is... if you're trying to make a political statement of some sort about the film's content. But if you just want to write a neutral encyclopedia article describing the film, it isn't necessary at all. Belchfire-TALK 20:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to form a special exception to the general Wikipedia principle of including material from reliable independent sources, and specifically censor content relating to the filmmakers' possible bias—that very exception-forming and censoring would itself constitute non-neutral politically-motivated editing. Many articles have sections titled "Critiques" or "Criticisms" or "Negative response" (or equivalent names) in which such material can be objectively presented, preferably writing specific attribution of the source into the article text so that readers are alerted. Granted: such critiques would have to be widespread in the media to be properly included in the lead paragraph(s): see WP:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview "Nuff said. Good evening. RCraig09 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Keeping the contents of an article relevant to the article's subject is not "censorship". Reliable sourcing is the threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee. We have an article about the film's creators, that's where information about their politics should go. Belchfire-TALK 21:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that reliable sourcing isn't the only requirement; however I never stated that it was. To reiterate: The premise of my statements was and is: "If reliable independent sources talk about political affiliations of the filmmakers in relation to the film..." Such content is "relevant" to (and includable in) both articles. No Wikipedia policy or guideline prevents the same content from being in more than one article. RCraig09 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you just said that exact thing. "The premise of my statements was and is: "If reliable independent sources talk about political affiliations of the filmmakers in relation to the film..." That's an argument based purely on sourcing. Belchfire-TALK 07:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, you've offered no counterargument here, just disagreement. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Bilge. I've made the argument that it's a neutrality issue, and your willful failure to acknowledge that speaks volumes. And what would be wrong with simply offering disagreement? That's what you normally bring. Belchfire-TALK 07:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not an argument, it's an unsupported conclusion. If you wish to claim that there's a neutrality issue, you must be very specific about what's wrong and how we should fix it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

McRaven in NYTimes August 15 Article

Belchfire has removed a piece that discusses what McRaven said about Obama's role and edit-warred to keep it that way.[1] This reference seems relevant to me, and it's well-sourced, so I'm not clear on what the issue is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree in principle with StillStanding's comment and AzureCitizen's edit summary. StillStanding was not being "disruptive" as Belchfire accused. The NYTimes article is definitely about the film, and in principle anything in this reliable independent source, including McRaven's prior quotation, is presumptively a reasonable candidate for inclusion in this article about the film. However, I think this paragraph's content needs to be adjusted and refined to include perspective and a more balanced description of the NYTimes article's content. I propose the following: RCraig09 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text:

In an article about the film in the "Politics" section of The New York Times, Scott Shane wrote that OPSEC described itself as nonpartisan but that some of its leaders have been involved in Republican campaigns and Tea Party groups. Specifically, Shane wrote that the film's featured former SEAL members include one whose Facebook page identifies him as a spokesman for the Tea Party Express and several Republican campaigns, and that OPSEC’s president ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate for Congress in 2010. Shane noted asserted that the film, "in an effort to portray Mr. Obama as a braggart taking credit for the accomplishments of special forces and intelligence operatives," edited out Obama's crediting the "tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals" from his announcement of bin Laden's killing; in this regard Shane quoted Admiral William H. McRaven as having said that Obama "shouldered the burden" for this operation, "made the hard decisions," and was "instrumental in the planning process." Shane further wrote that OPSEC's president acknowledged Republican ties of some members but said that “as many or more (of the film's participants) are apolitical. ... This issue is more than just politics.”

(Preceding text is proposed by RCraig09 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC).) Proposal revised by RCraig09 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC).

I can live with this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly okay with taking it in this direction too. There might be some minor tweaking necessary regarding the editing of the video footage (that it was from the night of the announcement, and the commentary specifically referred to the "editing out" of Obama giving credit), but no big deal. How does Belchfire feel about this edit? Belchfire, do you want to comment before we implement something like the above? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made minor revisions to the above proposal, per AzureCitizen's suggestion, and more in line with exact language of NYTimes reference. RCraig09 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done, that's exactly what I had in mind. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good. I'd change the second sentence from "Shane wrote" to "Shane pointed out" or "Shane noted". These are undisputed facts, not interpretation, so no need to hedge on the source. Glaucus (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone can say Shane's statements are 'undisputed,' so I favor keeping the present (careful) wording. RCraig09 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

These are facts, not opinions: " one whose Facebook page identifies him as a spokesman for the Tea Party Express and several Republican campaigns, and that OPSEC’s president ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate for Congress in 2010". Moreover, they seems to be fairly uncontroversial facts. At least one source has OPSEC acknowledging them. So, unless these facts are in dispute by reliable sources, they are indisputed. Hedging on them makes it sound like there's a controversy over the facts when there is not. Glaucus (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted the paragraph into the article without wording changes, because: ● "Shane wrote..." is not 'hedging' but is neutral and factual--especially important in a controversial article like this. ● Asserting something is "undisputed" would require complete knowledge of all references, which is not possible. ● Even if one source says OPSEC acknowledges the facts, other sources beyond your personal knowledge might contradict, condition or limit. ● Generally, it's not the place of Wikipedia editors to state what is "fact" since Wikipedia is founded on a fair representation of all reliable independent sources, not on editors' conclusions or editors' WP:synthesis. ● If you think the point is important, it would be more appropriate to add a phrase along the lines of: "Shane wrote, and OPSEC president (or whoever) acknowleged,^[SOURCE] that ..." so that the sources, not Wikipedia editors, determine article content. RCraig09 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the proposed paragraph has been here for four days, gaining general consensus, I think it's fair for incorporation into the article at this time. RCraig09 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Belchfire's repeated removal of content related to Admiral McRaven's pre-film-release comments (regardless of whether it formally constitutes edit warring). Belchfire's edit summary—"if McRaven wasn't commenting on the film, saying that his views are relevant is original research"—reflects a misunderstanding of WP:Original research. In fact what Wikipedia OR policy forbids is analysis or synthesis by Wikipedia editors from being introduced into Wikipedia articles. In this NYTimes 2012-08-15 article, which is specifically about the film, it is the NYTimes author Shane and not a Wikipedia editor who analyzes and synthesizes; therefore the paragraph that Belchfire improperly deleted, including Shane's content fairly presented, is properly includable. RCraig09 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• McRaven's was talking about Obama's role in ordering the hit on bin Laden, not the film. What editors are trying to do here is use what McRaven said to rebut OPSEC's message, even though McRaven was talking about something entirely different when he was speaking. That's original research, period. It's quite obvious, and I'm not misunderstanding anything. Belchfire-TALK 04:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What you do not yet understand is that it is the NYTimes author Shane who rebuts part of the film's message, in a reference about the film. No original research is being committed by Wikipedia editors in the paragraph you've been deleting. RCraig09 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make it relevant; it just illustrates the differences between a newspaper and an encyclopedia. The NYT is free to make certain editorial leaps of logic that don't work here. You're still doing OR by trying to say it's relevant just because some hack at NYT thinks it's relevant. Belchfire-TALK 05:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

some hack at NYT do you know him?. --Mollskman (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you? Belchfire-TALK 05:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@Belchfire, no. --Mollskman (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Belchfire, but WP:OR does not mean what you think it means. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedias fundamentally rely on reliable independent sources—such as the NYTimes. We can include material when such a source analyzes or synthesizes, even if in your personal opinion it involves "leaps of logic" from a "hack." The deleted paragraph presents the fact that the NYTimes said what it said in response to the film. I agree with StillStanding. RCraig09 (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

McRaven in CNN Sept 6 Article

By chance this morning, I also happened to come across this, which states that Admiral McRaven recently sent an email to all USSOCOM SF and SEAL personnel in the aftermath of OPSEC's activities and the recent book released by a former SEAL. Should this information be incorporated as well? See quote below. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

McRaven is aiming squarely at a group of former SEALs actively opposing President Barack Obama. The admiral is referring to the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, which has sponsored a Web video featuring former special forces officers accusing the president of taking too much credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and allowing classified information about the raid to become public. While McRaven said former SEALs have the right to express their opinions, he wants any link to the active duty force to be kept out of it. "By attaching a special operations moniker or a unit or service name to a political agenda, those individuals have now violated the most basic of our military principles," McRaven said in his e-mail message to the troops.

I never meant to become very involved in this article, but here's my impression: This 2012-09-06 CNN article isn't specifically about the film (though OPSEC and the film are among several issues mentioned); the CNN article is about "A battle for the conscience"—what SEALs should and should not be doing or disclosing in general. In any event, exercise care to avoid Wikipedia editor WP:synthesis if you're inserting it into this article. RCraig09 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2012

This edit request has been answered.

I'd like the article to be restored to the previous version. It differs in that the "responses" section has more content, which is needed for neutrality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: We will not continue your edit war by proxy. Please discuss the edit with the other editors involved to reach consensus. Anomie⚔ 14:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph in question was arrived at after about five days (Sept. 2-7) of consensus building. 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolving the edit war of 8 September 2012

Okay, it appears that an edit war broke out over the text about Admiral McRaven's comments. As best as I can tell, here is how things went down:

1. Four editors expressed support here on the Talk Page for this text in the section "McRaven in NYTimes August 15 Article" above (StillStanding-247, RCraig09, Glaucus, AzureCitizen).
2. After four days, RCraig09 implemented the proposed text with the edit here (edit summary: Substituting new paragraph re NYTimes article 2012-08-15, per discussion and general consensus on Talk Page).
3. The text was then double-reverted by two editors (Belchfire, Mollskman), followed by immediate lock down by an admin.

If I understand correctly, the particular text at issue can be seen here in bold italics for emphasis:

In an article about the film in the "Politics" section of The New York Times, Scott Shane wrote that OPSEC described itself as nonpartisan but that some of its leaders have been involved in Republican campaigns and Tea Party groups. Specifically, Shane wrote that the film's featured former SEAL members include one whose Facebook page identifies him as a spokesman for the Tea Party Express and several Republican campaigns, and that OPSEC’s president ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate for Congress in 2010. Shane asserted that the film, "in an effort to portray Mr. Obama as a braggart taking credit for the accomplishments of special forces and intelligence operatives,"edited out Obama's crediting the "tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals" from his announcement of bin Laden's killing; in this regard Shane quoted Admiral William H. McRaven as having said that Obama "shouldered the burden" for this operation, "made the hard decisions," and was "instrumental in the planning process." Shane further wrote that OPSEC's president acknowledged Republican ties of some members but said that “as many or more (of the film's participants) are apolitical. ... This issue is more than just politics.”

Since the article is now locked down until 10 September 2012 at 05:25 UTC, we have 48 hours or so to get this resolved before editors likely return to flipping the text back and forth again. I'd suggest all interested editors post their comments below, starting with an "Include" or "Exclude" comment, along with applicable Wikipedia policy based arguments on the issue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Should Admiral McRaven's comments (as seen above) be included or excluded from the text?

• Include - The admiral's comments are directly about the film and are statements from a knowledgeable source, not a pundit. It's the sort of material that's absolutely necessary for neutrality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Small correction: The admiral's comments were not made about the video; the comments were made about Obama. Just like the video's comments were made about Obama. The NYT article then examined the video's claims that Obama takes undue credit for the raid and doesn't give due credit to the special forces and intel guys for the raid. The NYT refutes both of the those claims as false and misleading: Obama, it turns out, is due considerable credit for the raid, as the commander of that raid explained; and Obama, as it turns out, did give ample credit to the military and intel guys, but that credit was mysteriously edited out of his announcements in this video. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include. Good summary, AzureCitizen. I've added the entire paragraph above, for complete context. RCraig09 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  Main issues:

► Balance/neutrality. The paragraph at issue constitutes a balanced presentation of a reliable independent source. RCraig09 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

► Consensus. The paragraph was arrived at through about five days (Sept. 2-7) of consensus building. RCraig09 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

► WP:Original research accusation. Contrary to Belchfire, it is not WP:Original research to include Shane's NYTimes' quotation of Admiral McRaven's pre-film statement, since the NYTimes article is the reference performing the analysis and synthesis—not McRaven, and not Wikipedia editors. It's precisely this sort of material that should be included in a "Responses" section. RCraig09 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

► Relevance. It's the reliable reference that provides the "relevance" that Belchfire says is lacking, even if Belchfire personally thinks the NYTimes source involves "leaps of logic" from a NYTimes "hack." RCraig09 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include and attribute the quote. But the graph is an unmitigated mess of confusion. The point that McRaven thinks Obama shouldered the burden could be made in a cleaner fashion.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  22:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include - The only objection to inclusion raised on this Talk page thus far is that McRaven's comments weren't about this 22-minute video, so any connection drawn between his comments and this video must therefore be WP:Original Research. That objection has since been proven to be baseless: The research was actually done by a reliable source (NYT), not a Wikipedia editor, and the relevance between the 22-minute video and McRaven's comments was conveyed by that reliable source, not a Wikipedia editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include - For all the reasons that we came to a clear consensus for inclusion just a couple of days ago. No rational objection beyond a clear misunderstanding of the meaning of WP:OR and the use of WP:RS has been put forth. The film makes certain claims about Obama's actions, an individual in the know disputed those claims and a WP:RS put them all together to rebut the claims of the film. This is the polar opposite of WP:OR. Glaucus (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked with the protecting admin (providing a link to this resolution thread) and a request to unlock the article was granted. Given that a number of editors have commented support for inclusion of the text while none have commented for exclusion, I think it is reasonable to re-implement RCraig09's edit of 7 September 2012. If other editors to wish the comment against the material, this thread remains open for discussion. Going forward from here, we might also want to look at Little Green Rosetta's suggestion that the point that McRaven thinks Obama shouldered the burden could be made in clearer fashion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing, AzureCitizen. It's amazing how many person-hours it took to resolve this simple point! ... Regarding how "clean" the text is, I assume GreenRosetta's criticism is based on the length of the sentence and on the numerous quotation marks. FYI: I included the various quotation marks because exact wording is important in a controversial article such as this, and I joined phrases (including use of the much-maligned semicolon) in order to reduce the number of superscripted footnotes, while presenting somewhat complex ideas in a logically and causally sequential fashion. RCraig09 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Is it really necessary to use Shane's name 5 times in the paragraph? There was some discussion about Shane being a "hack". Should that matter? --Mollskman (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply. Though some might not prefer it stylistically, I used Shane's name as the subject of the sentences so as to be careful not to imply that the NYTimes as a whole wrote the article. This language predated (and has nothing to do with) Belchfire's "hack" remark. RCraig09 (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So we have an opinion "Politics" piece from a non notable author, who may or may not be a hack? --Mollskman (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What we have is the required reliable independent source, included here by unanimous consensus after two extensive discussions. An author need not be notable for his work to be included: WP:Notability relates to whether a subject warrants his own article. Belchfire's unsubstantiated personal opinion that Shane is a "hack" was then and still is irrelevant. With over 1250 edits over eight months—not counting anonymous edits—you probably understood these policies and guidelines already. RCraig09 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. --Mollskman (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank, RCraig, for linking just one of the several policies and guidelines that undercut your argument. Belchfire-TALK 05:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to thank RCraig for making a substantive comment. In contrast, Mollskman merely expressed unexplained disagreement, while you gestured at an argument you haven't explicated. Both of you have failed to offer a productive response. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Still posting —Redacted pursuant to WP:NPA by AzureCitizen (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)— comments? Thanks, --Mollskman (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was calling his comments douchbag like, not him. I would call you a tight azz but that won't help. --Mollskman (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on discussing the content and policies, rather than commenting on fellow editors. Would someone like to make a policy-based argument as to why they believe Shane's report in the NYT does not belong in the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Who said it doesn't belong in the article? Also I wasn't commenting on another editor, I was commenting on his comments. --Mollskman (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dishonorable Disclosures. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/us/politics/ex-military-and-cia-officers-attack-obama-over-bin-laden-leaks.html?_r=1
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/6ADprW3eE?url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/opinion/bergen-obama-swift-boat/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20120827033254/http://www.cnn.com:80/2012/08/17/opinion/bergen-obama-swift-boat? on http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/opinion/bergen-obama-swift-boat/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYmK19-d0U

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)