Talk:Michael Morell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Photo picture

A photo of Michael Morell would be appropriate. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Linguistic Prowess

The main article would be improved if there were a discussion of his ability to speak foreign languages in his undergraduate days. Which classes did he take in college - before he got his degree in Economics? Did he write (or publish) anything in Chinese, Thai, Malay, or Vietnamese? 75.164.247.233 (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Benghazi?

Can you seriously put out a whole article about Morell without mentioning his very controversial role and testimony relating to the Benghazi imbroglio? How can anybody take you seriously with such omissions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.174.225 (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible controversy

Is it normal in America for former CIA directors to evoke their Agency affiliations when attacking presidential candidates in the New York Times? In most democracies that would be considered an obscene intervention and abuse of previous service. No doubt this man was another deeply unprofessional, partisan appointment by Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC) [redacted per FORUM, BLP] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum, folks. Funcrunch (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

~@Funcrunch:, if you want to remove the entire section please be my guest. I wanted to be respectful by only removing the most serious BLPVIO. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"Russians and Iranians"

This story is mostly covered by non-reliable sources. The one exception was the CBS story that is in the article. But, that doesn't mean it should be in the lede. Second, the CBS coverage of the interview says *nothing* about "covert killing". What it does say is that Iran and Russia should "pay a price" for their intervention in Syria. Then Morell clarifies that this would involve "killing Russians and Iranians". From the context it's clear he's talking about Russian and Iranian troops. You can't just cherry pick parts of the quote to make him look bad. You CANNOT do that in a BLP. My phrasing is faithful to the source and avoids POV pushing.

Do not try to restore controversial content in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Your rephrasing violates WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:EUPHEMISM. Morell is not an idiot; he said he wanted to kill Russians and Iranians "covertly" and "scare Assad" in an interview published online; it's in the public domain and he knew he was telling the entire world. That was his intention; we don't need to treat him like a baby. He understands media and the power of words.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As I already pointed out on your talk page WP:NOTCENSORED does say: "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) "

And this isn't about censoring anything. It's about reflecting the sources accurately. The CBS source, which is the only reliable source being used does not say anything about "covert". I don't have a problem with putting in that he thinks the us should "scare Assad". But that's not what the text had in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, can you find a policy confirming that RT and The Intercept are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards? (Both of which I never read, but they come up when you google "Michael Morell" right now.) The thing is, he said those words on tape; it's in the interview, which anybody can watch online. So we know they are not lying.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The referenced info does not violate any BLP guidelines. Also, why did you remove his direct quote "I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad."?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The reliability of RT has been discussed numerous times at RSN. I don't know about the Intercept but it's definitely not a "high quality source" and it shouldn't be used in a BLP except for most basic stuff. So yes, based on that, the text based on it does violate BLP. For the quote, it's taken out of context. Notice I did not remove everything about this quote, just made sure that it actually reflects the source.

You might also want to listen to what other editors told you here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's irrelevant. They didn't want to add Morell's comments to HRC's campaign article, even though he made them upon endorsing her. I let it go. But they should definitely appear here.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather avoid starting RFCs. So in an effort to be constructive: you wrote,

• "Morell called for making Russia and Iran "pay a price" for their involvement in Syria". Morell was using a euphemism; we don't use euphemisms on Wikipedia. Would you object to writing "Morell called for the covert killing of Russians and Iranians"? If so, why?
• "He also called for stronger approach against the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad." That's also a euphemism. Would you object to writing "Regarding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Morell argued ""I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad.""? If so, why?

Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not our job to determine whether a speaker was using a euphemism or not. WP:EUPHEMISM is about Wikipedia editors using euphemisms, not sources. Yes, I would object to such a phrasing, since, as stated above, the source (CBS) doesn't say anything about "covert" and the quote is taken out of context.

I'm fine with the phrasing regarding Assad.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The quote regarding Russians and Iranians is not "out of context". It is what he said. We can redact "covert" until we are able to find another reliable source for this word if you want. But killing Russians and Iranians is what he said. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not an argument.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that *without context* it makes it sound like he was saying that US should just kill random Russians or Iranians. But *with the context* it's obvious he's talking about Russian and Iranian military personnel in Syria.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW, even though I disagree with you, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this calmly and work towards consensus. Kudos.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So I think if Morell calls for the covert killing of Russians and Iranians, we need to relay this information on Wikipedia. We shouldn't try to re-interpret what he said, or contextualize it. He's not an idiot and he must have prepared the interview; he knew what he was saying and the format (online interview for the entire world). If he misspoke, he can give another interview and we could then add more content with third-party sources to contextualize what he said.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Again there's no "covert" in the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone uploaded a clip with "covertly" on youtube.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

New York Magazine published the exchange, with "covertly":

“We need to make them pay a price by killing Russians and killing Iranians?” Rose asked.

“Yes. Covertly,” Morell replied. “You don’t tell the world about it. You don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say ‘we did this.’ But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”

Is that enough?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's a new source. It also says "Morell told PBS that the United States should arm Syrian rebel groups and instruct them to kill Russian and Iranian personnel in their country" (my emphasis). So if we state that he was referring to Russian and Iranian personnel (or military) in Syria then it could work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek: I think they may be re-interpreting/contextualizing what he said a bit, but it sounds like a fair interpretation. How should we phrase the new content?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek: I got bored waiting, so I've added more content. Please let me know if you think this is OK. It's a bit whitewashed, but as a Morell supporter, I'm fine with it.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The basic info, the way you put it in, is fine. But I don't see the need for the last sentence which you added (and which we haven't discussed). The "Some commentators responded by saying Clinton should distance herself from Morell's neoconservative views" part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Because that's what the reference says. It would be biased editing if we only took the positive parts of the reference. Besides, it contextualizes the whole thing.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

First, we are not "only taking the positive parts of the reference" at all. Second, the source does not actually say "commentators responded" to anything. It's just an op-ed by one person and one person's opinion. That's not good enough for a BLP. I'm removing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's written by the "Associate Editor at New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer.". He's a political commentator. Do we need an RFC for this?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he's an AE at the magazine. It's still an op-ed piece and it's still an opinion of one person (possibly, the opinion of one magazine). Even in a non-BLP this would be UNDUE. What you need is a secondary source which says "commentators responded etc.". Otherwise, in addition to this being undue, it's also original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Morell is fabulous, but we should include the criticism in the public domain. This shouldn't be an advertisement.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It would also contextualize what he said, by the way. Clinton has received a lot of support from neoconservatives.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Citing Morell's book

User:Lutzv: You appear to be citing Morell's book, which is a primary source, not a reliable third-party source. This could be seen as POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: Thank you for your message - it's a good point; however, I personally was not citing the book. My edits pertained only to cleaning up the formatting of the references already there.Lutzv (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Got it. For his career trajectory, we may be able to find reliable third-party sources like newspaper articles, possibly on Newspapers.com.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to take a look at that when I have a moment to get back to this! Lutzv (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to ping me again when you get to it.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Is it muh-RELL?

Is it MORE-ull, like the mushroom?

Perhaps something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.188.142.130 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)