Jump to content

Talk:Imran Awan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"needs better references"?

[edit]

Why is Luke Rosiak from The Daily Caller:

not a good reference? --87.156.225.84 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NEWSORG: "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." Since this is a WP:Biography of a living person, we need to have a higher standard of sources, especially for information that could be considered contentious, including a lot of The Daily Caller's reporting on this individual. FallingGravity 01:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding! Both articles from Andrew C. McCarthy (a senior fellow at the National Review Institute) are based on articles from Luke Rosiak in The Daily Caller. Rosiak was the investigative reporter. I got the impression, but may be wrong, all others are reprinting/processing his work.
Daily Caller links about Imran Awan
Links:
The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010. It is now seven years old. When is a medium established enough to be quoted in the WP? --87.156.235.82 (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just about age, it's more about their commitment to fact-checking and correcting mistakes. The National Review has such a reputation, but the Daily Caller doesn't have that at the moment. (P.S. I've collapsed the list of links you've provided, since they may be useful for research but could also be considered linkspam.) FallingGravity 15:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kimberley A. Strassel from WSJ - Aug. 3, 201: "... According to an analysis by the Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak, who has owned this story, ..." - Indisputably Rosiak is the reference ;-) --87.156.232.221 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giraldi/The American Conservative

[edit]

@FallingGravity: Why did you deleted with no explanation or commentary: [1] ??? Philip Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) - he is a good references. --87.156.232.221 (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first I was in a hurry and forgot to provide an explanation, which I'll provide here. Whether or not he had a security clearance could be relevant for this article, but the phrase "and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired" doesn't tell us anything about how they were hired except that there is currently a lack of public knowledge. FallingGravity 21:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My motto: "stick to what the source says" ;-) The Awan brothers had complete and direct access to information of three extremely sensitive committees: The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Homeland Security Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The access to the information they had, along with their known or suspected affiliations to such groups as Hezbollah has shaken government insiders with knowledge about the case. --87.156.232.221 (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The American Conservative is a popular opinion journal, but it's use on Wikipedia should generally be accompanied with proper attribution. Opinion pieces generally aren't acceptable sources for WP:BLP articles. FallingGravity 02:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FallingGravity: Yeppp, I know that ;-) That was reason why I wrote: "According to Philip Giraldi, a counter-terrorism specialist, the FBI was looking into espionage involving Awan, his associates and Dr. Ali A. al-Attar, a 1989 graduate of the American University of Beirut Faculty of Medicine.(“The Strange Case of Imran Awan”, by Philip Giraldi. The American Conservative, August 3, 2017. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-strange-case-of-imran-awan)
And we can corroborate, please read: According to court documents, federal prosecutors, and former CIA case officer Philip Giraldi, the Awans owed $100,000 to an international fugitive linked to Hezbollah. Written in Slate (magazine) -- not a crazy-right-wing-nutcase-site either... I'm afraid the Awan-Attar link is not an opinion - it is a fact. I'm so sorry to contradict you. --87.159.118.52 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Giraldi is an EX-"counter-terrorism specialist". Currently he's a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theorist who associates himself with the likes of Alex Jones of Infowars [2], David Icke (youtube OpfTm0O94Mc) and Global Research [3]. We are NOT gonna accuse living people of stuff because this guy said so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP - conjecture by unreliable sources

[edit]

{I tried to revert the three edits by the IP address but didn't manage to, so did some clumsy manual editing.) Awan and his family are not public figures, so the bar for BLP violations is low. So far, this is a story of one arrest and lots of rumors and back-and-forth citing between unreliable sources who can’t even get each other’s "facts" straight. The story so far, according to reliable sources:

  • On July 24, 2017, Awan was about to board a plane to Pakistan when he was arrested and charged with bank fraud. On December 12, 2016, Awan and/or his wife had applied for a home equity loan on a property they were not using as their primary residence, as they had claimed, but renting out.
  • On January 18, 2017, Awan and/or his wife wired $283.000, including the $165.000 from the home equity loan, to Pakistan.
  • According to unverified information, Awan, his wife, two brothers, and a friend of Awan had been scamming several members of Congress who had contracted with them individually to administer their IT equipment on a part-time basis. Capitol Police is allegedly investigating and declining to comment on the nature of the alleged scam.
  • After the members of Congress were briefed on the investigation in the spring, they terminated the contracts, with the exception of Wasserman Schultz who terminated her contract with Awan after he was arrested, stating that "until there was credible evidence, she saw no reason to terminate a longstanding work arrangement".
  • Awan’s wife flew to Pakistan with their three children on March 5, 2017. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is he from?

[edit]

>Awan is a Pakistani immigrant and from Lorton, Virginia.

Two sources are provided, one says:

> "Awan, 37, of Virginia, pleaded...."

The other says:

> "Imran Awan, 37, of Lorton, Virginia, pleaded..."

The text in the wiki article is ambiguous, and so are the sources given. Neither article (as of 11Aug2017) contain the word "immigrant" at all. So I added the [not in citation given] tag.

71.191.187.9 (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on what Wikipedia considers an acceptable source.

http://observer.com/2017/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz-imran-awan-investigation-islamophobic/

In it, DWS is quoted saying, "He is from Pakistan…He's an American, a naturalized American citizen."

I'm not going to add it because of the possibility of violating some rule or crossing someone with an editing agenda. Again. So will someone with more experience please do the right thing for us? 71.191.187.9 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His associates

[edit]

Why are his associates Hina Alvi, Jamal and Abid Awan, Natalia Sova and Rao Abbas not named? --87.159.125.241 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hina Alvi is named because she's Imran Awan's wife. I'm not sure how the others are significant, so I opted not to name them per WP:BLPNAME. FallingGravity 01:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read: "Mr. Awan and other IT aides have been under suspicion by investigators for months after being accused of stealing equipment and sensitive information from House members’ computers. Many lawmakers had already terminated him from their service, but Ms. Schultz, Florida Democrat and a former Democratic National Committee chairwoman, kept him on the payroll until his arrest." --87.156.236.205 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FallingGravity: Jamal and Abid Awan are Imran Awan's brothers. Natalia Sova is his brother's wife. Rao R Abbas is his creditor ($100,000), unqualified for IT work in Congress, former Burger flipper at McDonalds, who lived in the basement of a home owned by Hina Alvi. His associates must not be deleted. @Volunteer Marek: And why are the remarks about the espionage probes always being deleted? This is a a spyring in Congress, for a minor bank fraud case or procurement theft we woudn't need a WP entry! Which sources were not RS? --87.159.117.33 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are already mentioned in the article, but WP:BLPNAME tells us we shouldn't publicize every name that shows up in the news. FallingGravity 00:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WT is not a reliable source. And I haven't seen "espionage probes" being discussed in any reliable sources. "His associates" is sort of weird phrasing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as I'm aware, none of these other people have been arrested or charged, so we keep their names out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"His associates" may be a weird phrasing, but they were designated so in the press. Part of the IT staff investigation are:

  • 1. Imran Awan
  • 2. his wife Hina R. Alvi
  • 3. his brother Abid Awan (2012  —  Abid Awan declared bankruptcy the the car dealership "CIA")
  • 4. Abid's wife, Natalia Sova
  • 5. his youngest brother Jamal Awan (joined the payroll at the age of 20 with a salary of $160,000)
  • 6. his high school friend Haseeb Rana
  • 7. his best friend Rao Abbas, who lived in the basement of a house that Hina Alvi owned as a rental property

It's complicated if we want to do it exactly, they somehow have to be designate, right? "Nespotism" or "spyring in Congress" -- "associates" kills seven flies with one blow. Do you find the phrasing now better? --87.159.122.54 (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indictments

[edit]

“Defendants AWAN and ALVI did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly conspire, combine, confederate, and agree with each other to commit offenses against the United States,” including bank fraud, false statements, and unlawful monetary transactions, the indictment said. --87.156.236.205 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This info is already included in the article. FallingGravity 23:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other buzzfeed article

[edit]

Since we use one, we should use the other. It debunks a lot of the nonsense surrounding this case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek:That is a good example of "lying by omission" and "political polarized reporting". Here some context: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4803884/Pictured-Dem-aide-charged-fraud-hacking-probe.html --87.159.122.54 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the daily mail. No thanks. Volunteer Marek  14:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congress not Coast

[edit]

The Congressional Federal Credit Union (herein CFCU), not the Coastal Federal Credit Union. --87.159.127.84 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an important distinction ;-) And they are indicted for TWO loans $165,000 and $120,000; the Wright Patman Congressional Federal Credit Union; the credit union branch is in the Longworth House Office Building/House Office Building; it was from her account → please do not delete it again. --87.159.116.211 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the same information twice (the $165,000 loan and $283,000 wire transfer) can be confusing for readers. Try to delete older information when you add new information. I've tried to do just that. :-) FallingGravity 02:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year

[edit]

Awan's current age is 37, according to the sources. I added 1980 in the biography section but it could also be 1979 if his birthday is after the date of the indictment. Anyone have a suggestion on how to handle this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way I figured out he was born in 1980 was that in March, Fox News reported that he was 36. FallingGravity 23:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In August 2017 he still had access to the IT network

[edit]

Awan had the standard address <redacted. and he also used in addition the address <redacted>. 2 Feb. 2017 authorities shut down Awan’s standard email account <redacted> - but as to 29 Aug. 2017 he still had access to the network through <redacted>:

Should it be mentioned? --87.159.122.54 (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a reliable source. Also, don't put people's email addresses on Wikipedia, whether they're fake or real. Volunteer Marek  14:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2017 - start - Grand Jury

[edit]

Quoting FallingGravity from the edit summary: "if the date isn't mentioned in secondary sources, then it probably isn't important enough to include in this article" and "clarification needed" → Thanks for asking, I will try my best. Bevor a grand jury can begin, there must have been investigations, right? Bevor investigations can begin something/a crime has to occur, right?

short version:

  • Feb 2016 - Beginn of (secret) investigations
  • Nov 2016 - Beginn of (secret) grand jury
  • Jan 2017 - Conduct of "the" crime
  • Feb 2017 - Disclosure of ongoing criminal investigations
  • Aug 2017 - Disclosure of ongoing grand jury

longer version:

  • ?? Feb 2016 - Start of the beginning of investigations. (Who is being investigated? For what?... it's a secret!) The  Chief of Staff for Yvette Clarke signs a form removing $120,000 worth of missing IT equipment from a House-wide tracking system.
  • 13 Nov 2016 - Empanelment of a (secret) federal grand jury. (Federal, state and county prosecutors utilise grand juries to decide whether probable cause exists to support criminal charges. Grand juries are -- usually -- reserved for serious felonies. Prosecutors will come in and present evidence in the form of witnesses, documents, photos and video/audio.)
  • 17/18 Jan 2017 - Awan initiates from the Wright Patman Congressional Federal Credit Union in the Longworth House Office Building/House Office Building an international wire in the amount of $283,000.00 to two individuals in Faisalabad.
  • 02 Feb 2017 - Disclosure of the criminal investigations, Sergeant-at-Arms confirmed to Congressional members the Capitol Police was conducting an active criminal investigation and he said no arrests had been made. Subsequently it was also revealed to the general public.
  • March 2017 - After a one-year-long investigation found Awan and associates stole equipment & hacked members of Congress, they were barred from the House IT networks. NOT ONE arrest. The investigation further focused on the equipment of 20 lawmakers, the 20 burglaries in Congress.
  • 5 Mar 2017 - FBI along with the Capitol Police got to Dulles Airport and stopped Hina Alvi before she embarked. Despite discovering $12,400 in undeclared cash that she was carrying, they allowed her and their three children to fly to Lahore. There has been no explanation why she was even allowed to leave, since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it is a felony. For this alone, she could have been arrested. Was her arrest in fact blocked?
  • 18 May 2017 - Wasserman-Schultz pressured the Chief of the Capitol Police Matthew R. Verderosa in a appropriations hearing to return her/Awans computer equipment, that had been confiscated in the criminal investigation into congressional network security violations: Verderosa “should expect that there would be consequences”.
  • 24 Jul 2017 - FBI and US Capitol Police arrested Awan (and seized $9,000 in cash he had with him).
It's an interesting timeline, but you still need to provide a secondary source to add the date to the article. FallingGravity 15:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editor - Need for restriction to autoconfirmed users?

[edit]

@FallingGravity: @Diannaa: @Volunteer Marek: @Space4Time3Continuum2x:Yesterday I deleted the Wikilink to the (Rep.) Wright Patman page, since the Credit Union simply was named after the congressman who died 41 1/2 years ago and was a financial sector critic. The CU had nothing to do with him, save for using his name. An IP Editor reverted my deletion. I undid the deletion and attempted to contact the editor to ask that it not be done again, but of course that was not possible. I notice that what appears to be an editor located in Bonn (many geolocation confirmations) has made many edits to the article. Other locations are geolocated, but almost all, Hennet, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf and Regen are in addition to Bonn. Editors have disagreed with the IP editor's contributions, one just a request to use the conventional English dating MM/DD/YR in edits, as the IP editor has used the non-English DD/MM/YR alternative. So editors can't ping him or her. I would suggest that the article should be limited to Autoconfirmed users to eliminate this difficulty. Also, I note that there have been disagreements amongst editors about what are, and are not, RS. I'm not comfortable with the Daily Caller, after that site's involvement with allegedly paying Dominican hookers to falsely smear Sen. Menendez. Also, a Forbes opinion piece was used as an RS, for the date of the inception of the investigation by the Capitol Police of the Awan matters, but Forbes notes a caveat. The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. I presume that means less than usual editorial control. The February 2016 date was not in the article cited. I can't seem to find it anywhere. It's a critical date to understanding the story, since that would mean a true bill took a year to be handed down in the case. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roomykhan/2017/08/31/the-dnc-it-scandal-and-the-jackpot-lottery-fraud-when-digital-gatekeepers-become-thieves/#73dd11684c86 Suggestions? Activist (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Mirando

[edit]

Michael Mirando: Imran`s cellphone had been wiped clean on purpose at 6:30 p.m. (Awan was arrested around 10 p.m.). Mirando used this and other details—such as that the Awan’s quickly sold many of their Virginia properties—to explain that Imran had no intention of returning. Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2017/10/09/congressional-it-aide-wiped-his-phone-before-being-arrested-heres-how-the-fbi-found-out - Oct 9, 2017, linked on Yahoo's front page - --87.159.112.223 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American computer specialists

[edit]

@Störm: I'm not sure how this category is "not suitable". It's there because he works in IT. Could you help explain? FallingGravity 20:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity: I don't think that he is a specialist in IT. Maybe some other category will be suitable. He is there because of DV lottery so we can't say he was born in the US. So, Pakistani emigrants to the United States is more appropriate. Thanks. Störm (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WaPo and NY Times both describe him as an IT specialist. The category "American people of Pakistani descent" describes itself as a list of "notable citizens of the United States of Pakistani ethnic or national origin or descent". It seems like U.S. citizenship is important here, not the country he was born in. FallingGravity 08:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment, Rahm Emanuel and the Dawn-article in Sept. 3, 2009

[edit]

Quotes:

  • "Dawn reported that Imran’s father, Muhammad Ashraf Awan, ripped Farmers in Pakistanm off as he "failed to pay a dozen farmers for their land." ... He "targeted his accusers after alleged pressure from Pakistani national-level politicians".
  • "Awan had purchased “huge chunks of land from different farmers in 2008,” but the all the checks bounced. “The police high-ups are ‘ominously’ indifferent to proceed against Awan,” the newspaper continued, saying it was “noteworthy” how fervently they were “complying with the desires of the US national.”"
  • "local police dropped charges against Imran’s father and targeted his accusers after alleged pressure from Pakistani national-level politicians."
  • "Awan openly bragged about having stolen the land and said he was dirt poor when he first came to the U.S. “He was a big fraud. They took a lot of people’s land, I told him on judgment day you’re going to be in trouble".
  • “Sources said that some ‘power muscles’ in the federal capital as well as in the provincial capital had phoned the local police to lend all sorts of help to the US national and his father,” Dawn reported."
  • "The police “harassed” the would-be victims and implicated them in what they said were “frivolous” cases, the article continued. They charged 19 would-be victims, including the five elderly brothers and even their lawyer, apparently to get them to stop trying to get their land back, the paper said.
  • “Mohammad Abid, a victim of Awan’s alleged high-profile swindling, said that Awan’s son had easy access to the corridors of power and that’s why he was able to [pressure] the police to dance to his tunes,” Dawn reported."
  • In that probe, authorities found evidence that Imran was diverting congressional data off of members’ servers and also systematically altering purchase orders for equipment.
  • "The dropped charges and alleged punishing of victims raise questions about whether congressional employers pulled in favors, and how an IT aide could have such influence. The Awans had access to the emails of 45 members of Congress. The entire Awan family was on the payroll of House Democrats as IT aides, and most earned as much as chiefs of staffs, taking in more than $5 million in pay. The 45 current members of Congress who employed the crew have refused to criticize him and have not said they’ve done anything to assess the integrity of their data despite a steady stream of suspicious conduct."

"During the time the Awans worked for Emanuel, he was chair of the House Democratic Caucus, and the Awans were rapidly added to the payrolls of many other members of the caucus. Shortly before the 2016 election, House authorities found major security breaches, including massive amounts of data leaving the House network with the caucus server as the epicenter." - --87.168.118.24 (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info from the Dawn article. It's probably best if we wait for other outlets to pick up and confirm the Daily Caller's story because (1) TDC doesn't qualify as a reliable source, especially for a WP:BLP, and (2) it just cites an anonymous Democratic IT aide. If the anonymous source can be confirmed, then we'll probably hear something about it in Fox News or some other media outlet. FallingGravity 05:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theories"?

[edit]

Some news articles have referred to allegations that Imran Awan and other members of his family stole government secrets as "conspiracy theories" - most recently this one in the Washington Post and this in the Tampa Bay Times. As a result, this Wikipedia article now refers many times to speculation about his guilt as "conspiracy theories". To me, the use of the term "conspiracy theories" by these publications just seems like bad journalism. Where's the "conspiracy"? A small group of people committing a crime together (as was alleged) is hardly a conspiracy. And I don't think anyone was alleging that the politicians that Awan worked for were in on the crime. These publications' use of "conspiracy theory" seems like just a lazy way of disparaging the anti-Awan side. Thus, I think the term should be avoided in this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We go with RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least explain what some of these theories are? None of the relevant news articles seem to. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main conspiracy seems to be that Awan was behind the DNC email leak (instead of Russia). The only proof offered is that Awan used to work for Debbie Wassermann Schultz. However, Awan didn't actually work for the DNC, and DWS's email account wasn't actually compromised in the attack (people she emailed were targeted, so that's how we got her emails). FallingGravity 04:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's a theory. (And it's covered in the article.) And it may be discredited. But is it a conspiracy theory? "Conspiracy" implies a group of people in power, whereas here the theory seems to be that one (or maybe a few) low-level employees did it. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't rely on your original research when deciding what goes into an article. We report what the sources say. See[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term "conspiracy theories" has been used quite a bit. (Though it appears to me, based on the very similar language found in many of these sources you cited, that a lot of these articles were more or less copy-and-pasting from the Washington Post article.) Still, does it bother you that no one seems to be able to point to what any of these conspiracy theories are? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out at least one these conspiracy theories, you just ignored it based on your definition of "conspiracy theory". It's like arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is. Anyways, the theory isn't that just that some rogue IT workers leaked some emails, it's that the government covered up the leak (and is still covering it up) to blame Russia, much like the theorizing on the murder of Seth Rich. FallingGravity 00:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. A government coverup could indeed be the subject of a conspiracy theory. Who alleged this coverup? The article's intro currently says that "Awan was subject to intense conspiratorial speculation by conservative publications and President Donald Trump". What did Trump say about a coverup? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text needs to make abundantly clear that the allegations levied at Awan are false and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Anything else is a violation of WP:BLP and also non-adherence to what RS are saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you, then - given that you think it's a matter of fact that Awan was the subject of multiple "conspiracy theories", what specifically are these conspiracy theories? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you 16 sources above, each of which answers your question. Read them. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and none of them do, as far as I can tell. It looks like a textbook case of sloppy journalism. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIR. The very first paragraph of the very first link clearly says "Federal prosecutors concluded an 18-month investigation into a former congressional technology staffer on Tuesday by publicly debunking allegations — promoted by conservative media and President Trump — suggesting he was a Pakistani operative who stole government secrets with cover from House Democrats". And the very first paragraph of the second link clearly says "Nevertheless, federal prosecutors said they found no evidence that he stole government secrets, as many conservatives, including President Trump, have suggested." Please stop wasting our time with questions that have already been answered. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that part I'm aware of. So what exactly is the conspiracy theory - that the House Democrats knew he was stealing secrets? Or that they didn't think he was stealing secrets, but didn't want him investigated? If it's the former, that does sound like a conspiracy - but I don't see any evidence for it; and between them, these 16 articles don't seem to offer a single fact or quote to back that up. Certainly, nothing Donald Trump is quoted as saying seems to point in that direction. If it's the latter, that doesn't sound like a conspiracy. In either case, it's worthwhile for this article to state what the actual allegations were, instead of just repeating the phrase "conspiracy theories" over and over with no explanation. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nobody cares about your WP:OR regarding what you think "conspiracy theory" means. Even if you are right this line of argument is irrelevant. We simply report what the sources say. That's what encyclopedias do. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that last part - but there's reporting with phrasing like "he was the subject of allegations of espionage, which various publications called conspiracy theories", and there's reporting with phrasing like "he was the subject of conspiracy theories". Either one is potentially appropriate - but I would think for the latter there's a higher burden of proof. Tied in with that, it's quite odd for a Wikipedia article to state repeatedly that someone was the subject of conspiracy theories without ever stating what those theories are. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a higher burden of proof. Which has been met. Feel free to add wording explaining what the conspiracy theories are, but you will have to use the definition of "conspiracy theory" that is in the sources, not what your original research tells you is the correct definition. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but again, I don't know what they are - and it doesn't sound like anyone else does either. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. I gave you the answer. "Allegations...suggesting he was a Pakistani operative who stole government secrets with cover from House Democrats". Your WP:IDHT behavior is becoming disruptive. please drop the WP:STICK now. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does "cover from House Democrats" mean? And who are these House Democrats? If it was just Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that's not a conspiracy either. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any suggested improvements to the article, or is this WP:FORUM? FallingGravity 16:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - my suggestion is to either clarify in the article what the term "conspiracy theories" refers to, or remove it, if it turns out not to refer to anything specific. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request denied. You have failed to convince a single editor. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any requests. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quit splitting hairs. You wrote "my suggestion is..." and you have indicated that you are unwilling to fix the article yourself, That's a request by any reasonable standard. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help fix the article - I've certainly been trying to. If there are any specifics on the conspiracy theories that Imran Awan has been the subject of, I'm happy to add them in - the current lack of specificity is quite odd. Unfortunately, neither I nor apparently anyone else know what these conspiracy theories are. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Luke Rosiak spread conspiracy theories"

[edit]

The article currently says that reporter Luke Rosiak spread conspiracy theories about Imran Awan. Now, there are disagreements over wording, and then there are direct WP:BLP violations, and this is the latter - especially since I don't believe there's a single reliable source that makes this claim. However you feel about the rest, this really should be removed at once. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about Gizmodo and WaPo reporter Aaron Blake? Or maybe most of those links provided by Guy Macon in the previous discussion thread? FallingGravity 00:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - these two sources have in fact (more or less) directly accused Rosiak of spreading conspiracy theories. I still think it's a BLP violation for this article to make the same statement. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban for Korny O'Near". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem angry. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to suck at identifying emotions from text-based posts on the Internet. I am treating you like I would treat any other disruptive editor, and my internal mental state concerting you is roughly 90% bemused detachment and 10% minor annoyance. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the facts

[edit]

A summary of the facts relating to the "conspiracy theories" claim, as far as I can tell:

  • In July 2018, an 18-month-long investigation of Imran Awan ended; the investigators found him guilty of bank fraud, but cleared him of a number of other crimes they had investigated him for, including espionage. They reported that they "uncovered no evidence" that Awan had stolen secrets while working as an IT aide for Democratic congressmen.
  • A substantial number of articles reporting on the outcome described it similarly: that the investigation had "debunked conspiracy theories" pushed by various conservative publications. I think the Washington Post was the first, with this article; others included The New York Times NBC News and CNN.
  • As far as I know, none of these articles explicitly say, "the conspiracy theories included A, B and C". However, all mention the charge of espionage, and at least one, the Washington Post article, says that the allegations included that Awan spied "with cover from House Democrats."
  • As for who spread the theories, the only publication directly named is the Daily Caller, which has to be a reference to Daily Caller investigative reporter Luke Rosiak. Rosiak was essentially a one-man investigative team on Awan while the government investigation was ongoing - seemingly all notable right-wing commentary on Awan was based on Rosiak's reporting.
  • The "cover from House Democrats" line may be a reference to speculation that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and/or other other congressmen were being blackmailed by Awan and/or others in his family into attempting to soft-pedal the investigation. Rosiak did note the possibility that blackmail was occurring in at least one article - where he quotes House IT aides making that speculation.
  • What was Donald Trump's role in all of this? The Washington Post article says that he "fanned" the conspiracy theories, NBC News says he "pushed" them, and CNN says he "added fuel" to them. The total of Trump's statements on Awan seems to be this retweet in July 2017, this retweet in August 2017, this tweet in April 2018, this tweet in June 2018, and a December 2017 interview with the New York Times in which he asked, "Whatever happened to this Pakistani guy who worked with the DNC?"
  • Another allegation made by Rosiak is that a House server Awan had access to went missing; in one article, he quoted a memo making that claim by House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul D. Irving. Trump referred to this alleged missing server in one of his tweets. The official investigation later stated that Awan was not responsible for any missing servers.

Korny O'Near (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on "conspiracy theories"

[edit]
This isn't going anywhere and is nothing more than failure to drop the stick, so I'm closing per WP:SNOW. Nanophosis (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article state that Imran Awan was the subject of "conspiracy theories"? If so, what are the theories, and who spread them?

You can see the section above for my attempt at summarizing the facts behind the issue. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the phrase "conspiracy theory" problematic, perhaps we should change it to "coordinated smear job" and be done with it. soibangla (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Oppose (I'm the original poster). I think it's clear that the allegations made by Luke Rosiak, which are really the allegations in question, don't rise to the level of "conspiracy theory". According to the "conspiracy theory" Wikipedia article, a conspiracy theory generally involves "an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors." In this case, the alleged nefarious acts were carried out by Imran Awan and possibly members of his family - low-level IT employees and not powerful actors. The involvement of U.S. representatives, in these allegations, is at most as victims - of blackmail or maybe just undue sympathy toward Awan. The use of "conspiracy theories" by these publications seems to be sloppy journalism - a poorly-worded and sensationalistic synonym for something like "outlandish theories". Also, I think directly stating in this article that Rosiak specifically spun conspiracy theories is a violation of the BLP guidelines. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
--Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this RfC. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you are not allowed to ask the same question again and again, completely ignoring the answer, and then to complain "well it wasn't answered on this part of the talk page!" Your question has been answered. Repeatedly. Stop asking it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it was before (we have differing opinions on that, but it doesn't matter now), it would be helpful to have it answered here, for the sake of this RfC. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You also don't get to control who is allowed to reply to you. See WP:OWNERSHIP. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been "answered here".[20] As it clearly states in Wikipedia:Verifiability, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." You were given fifteen sources, each of which clearly answers your question in detail. You simply refuse to accept the answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for a simple answer (to be clear, I was asking Snooganssnoogans, not you), but in any case, oh well. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is so blindingly obvious based on the preponderance of reliable sources that I really don't see the point of this RFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If possible, could you please answer the other two questions? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. The two questions in this RFC are: "Should this article state that Imran Awan was the subject of "conspiracy theories"? If so, what are the theories, and who spread them?" The answers, respectively, are "yes", and "see the numerous sources already cited in this RFC". According to the sources, the conspiracy theories paint a portrait of Awan being Pakistani spy who illegally broke into DNC computers and stole government secrets. As to who spread them, the sources are clear that they were spread by blogs, conservative media and websites (Daily Caller and Fox News are explicitly named), and President Trump. You need to take the trouble to read the sources yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that's all I wanted. I think it's obvious that thinking that an IT employee is a spy does not fit the definition of "conspiracy theory", but clearly you think otherwise. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been explained to you multiple times. It doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what Anachronist thinks, and it doesn't matter what you think. See our policy on WP:OR. All that matters is what the sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) It doesn't matter what you or I think. The only thing that matters is what the sources say. The sources characterize it as a conspiracy theory (the "conspiracy" being between Awan and Pakistan, and the "theory" being an unproven allegation). When something "obvious" to you is contradicted by reliable sources, we still go with what reliable sources say. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Even just having the article say "He was the subject of a conspiracy theory which involved him being a spy for the Pakistani government" would be an improvement (in my opinion) over the current wording in the article, which doesn't even say that. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]

Anyone who is concerned about the WP:IDHT behavior on this talk page is encouraged to weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban for Korny O'Near. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The “Pakistani gentleman”s server :-)

[edit]

President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin hold a highly anticipated meeting and joint news conference in Helsinki, Finland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R02tZh2igR8 - at 4:43 : "My people came to me, [Director of National Intelligence] Dan Coats came to me and some others and said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server. But I have — I have confidence in both parties. I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?" --87.170.203.79 (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find a better source. See Wikipedia:Video links. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Court document and biographical details

[edit]

Generally I try to avoid using WP:PRIMARY sources, but the sentencing memo has some biographical details that could be added to this article (his attendance of Annandale High School and Northern Virginia Community College). Also, our article says he won the diversity lottery at 14 while this document says he won at the age of 16, a discrepancy which is worth investigating. FallingGravity 15:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FallingGravity You once wrote to me... "an interesting timeline" and WP:SECONDARY - sometimes rules actually make no sense → reductio ad absurdum ;-) Just finished the book: "Luke Rosiak: Obstruction of Justice: How the Deep State Risked National Security to Protect the Democrats. Foreword by Newt Gingrich. Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2019." Here a brand new video with Rosiak: What the Jeffrey Epstein, Imran Awan, & Jackson Cosko Scandals Might Have in Common. It's ‘unbelievable’ how blatant corrupt the US government is. Cheers. --87.170.194.214 (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Awan&oldid=1205540173"