Talk:Sebastian Gorka/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled (conflict of interest)

This is obviously a self-article. It is not illegal, of course, but it is also not very nice, to say the minimum.--Szilas (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gun charges

@Anon3579: Okay. This is a complicated issue, but Wikipedia has fairly strict policies on how we cover living people: WP:BLP. We also have guidelines restricting how we use WP:PRIMARY sources, and court documents are definitely primary sources. The case number is valid, and can be looked up, although Virginia's website doesn't make it particularly easy. That said, court documents are notoriously difficult to properly assess for meaning and due weight, and nothing remotely controversial should be supported only by a primary source. Since this appears to be a minor issue, better sources are needed before going into depth.

@2250yset: I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're the same editor as Ccherzog, is that right? Judging by the past history of very promotional editing here, I'm also willing to bet that you're Sk-gorka. Considering that this is a BLP issue, I think some slack can be given, but creating a new account just to continue edit warring is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's policies, and I hope it's obvious why. I understand why this might be frustrating, but using a misleading edit summary is transparently deceptive and shows contempt for Wikipedia as a website, which makes it much harder to work with you. Editing with a conflict of interest is itself also a big problem, which has already been explained on at least one account's talk page. Please clearly explain what's going on, otherwise all three accounts are likely to be blocked. Do you understand?

No matter how much you undermine your own credibility here with these antics, even if blocked, if you are notable enough to be discussed, you are entitled to neutral coverage according to Wikipedia's policies. If you have a problem with content about yourself, the best way to fix it is by raising it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. There admins and other experienced editors can help you, and the issue will almost certainly be seen and handled much more quickly than if you try and handle it yourself. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: No, I'm not Ccherzog. See my Talk reply to you. If Wikipedia doesn't want living persons/"promotional" pages, then delete it. The page is not meant to be promotional but to simply present Subject's background, books and publications for those interested. If this is wrong or not useful, then it should be removed. I understand the "edit war" going on is not productive but how does one stop someone from unfairly trying to defame a Subject on Wikipedia, especially in light of the contentious elections? As soon as the info is corrected, Anon3579 changes it back again. 2250yset (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)2250yset

I've reported Anon3579 for edit warring, as can be seen here. As I said above, and as is explained at the top of this talk page, AND as is explained in the big red banner across the top of the page when it's edited, the way to resolve this is to explain the problem at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to determine what is and what is not of interest, with a strong preference for sources which are independent of the topic. This is reliably sourced to the Washington Post, and is not connected to Gorka, so it can at least be considered. The next step is to discuss it.

I'm not going to lie. I'm very skeptical when you say you're not Ccherzog, as the signs are too strong to ignore and you still haven't explained why you were deceptive with the edit summaries. If you still deny this, I will start a sock-puppetry investigation to ask experienced, impartial editors to look into it more closely. Grayfell (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I used to be highly active on Wikipedia (clearly, I am not active as I struggled to remember how to outdent). I happened upon this article, wondering who Sebastian Gorka is after reading something about him on Fox News.

I am both amused and dismayed to find the article had to be locked down due to edit warring over a rather simple issue. If my 2¢ helps at all, this Google search on “Sebastian Gorka gun” yielded a few hits dating to February of this year. One of them is to an RS, The Washington Post (this article).

Too often, wikipedians take it upon themselves to be intrepid cub reporters Changing the World©®™® and this leads—among many types of issues—to misguided efforts to bring to light all manner of information the wikipedian believes is encyclopedically relevant. Single-purpose accounts, such as User:2250yset are not infrequently dedicated to ensuring Wikipedia articles conform to their personal interests and world view. It's a prescription for edit warring, in which case, we look towards established policy, which is a tortuous product of consensus.

IMHO, we should look towards RSs like The Washington Post. The totality of what sort of coverage there is on a topic like the gun charge, how much of it there is, and when it was last in the news should guide us as wikipedians when deciding what is encyclopedically germane and how much emphasis to place on a given topic.

All things considered, the current version (perma-link as of this writing) seems like the issue of the gun charges is encyclopedic and has due weight. There is no undo weight given to the incident via such means as a separate sub-heading titled “Gun charges”, and there isn’t undo dwelling on the subject.

If, a few years down the road into the Trump administration, the RSs seem to be ignoring the gun-charge issue, we should consider dropping mention of the incident as possible agenda pushing. For the moment, the current treatment seems appropriate. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I am going to ask a dispute resolution. --Ltbuni (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I encourage you to do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are currently removing a reliable source's description of something because you yourself just disagree with that description.[1]. You're not editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No sir, You're the one, who is doing this. The source was NOT reliable, I read the original Hungarian articles, and found pretty much different from the statement of the journal. Why is Breitbart not a reliable source, and why Forward is?--Ltbuni (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The report is a couple of hours old and other reliable sources have already picked it up: Foreign Policy[2], New York Magazine[3]. So now there are three reliable sources that are reporting this story, and yet it's being kept out of this article because you, an individual editor, claim to know something that reliable sources don't. If you don't know why Breitbart News is unreliable, you have no business editing on Wikipedia or accusing other sources of being unreliable. The Wikipedia page for Breitbart News says that "Breitbart News is known to publish falsehoods and conspiracy theories,[b] as well as intentionally misleading stories". Breitbart News has never been accepted as a reliable source on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. So not only are your edits completely inconsistent with Wikipedia policy (we report what reliable sources say, even if we disagree with the reliable sources), but the fact that you have poor judgment and can't distinguish good sources from bad sources means that we shouldn't trust your original research at all (that is to say, if Wikipedia were to allow original research to displace reliable sources). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

They all refer to the Forward. If the original source is false, does it make true if it appears in two other newspapers? I don't know what You are suggesting with the link. BTW, We DO NOT use Wikipedia as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source. And please use neutral language ("poor judgment" and others)!--Ltbuni (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether the Forward story is correct or false does not matter in terms of whether it should be included on Wikipedia. If every reliable source says that the Sun revolves around the Earth, we would say that on the relevant Wikipedia pages. Also, Haaretz has republished the story[4]. So now there are four reliable sources that are being kept out of the article because one editor who has already demonstrated poor judgment considers himself to be the arbiter of accuracy on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't cite an article/video from Breitbart. However, LobeLog, [5] which is a major source for this controversy that we cite and other articles cite, refers to the Breitbart article. I think we have to make an exception and include that article as part of the story and controversy. In a BLP, the subject is allowed a rebuttal to accusations. It's unfortunate he chose Breitbart. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What's being contested here is whether reliably sourced content should be scrubbed from the page because a Breitbart piece by Gorka challenges it (which is what Ltbuni did). It's perfectly fine to add a response piece by Gorka if it's attributed to him. Nobody has claimed otherwise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was asked to weigh in on this conversation by Ltbuni because I mediated a dispute involving them on another article...probably a few months ago. So here are my thoughts:

1. Breitbart is trash...just honestly absolute garbage. There is in fact, probably only a few publishers in the history of Wikipedia that have had a more solid consensus for their unreliability.
2. The real content that these other sources report does, for the most part, seem to come from The Forward, so you really don't have four sources, you have one source and an echo chamber.
3. The Forward seems, as far as I can tell, generally uncertain in its reliability. Personally, I've never heard of it before, and it doesn't look like there's ever been a discussion about it at WP:RSN. It seems to be pretty open in its overtly pro-Jewish stance/advocacy, and so on matters of antisemitism specifically, it's probably best to take things with a grain of salt.
4. It may be a good idea to start a discussion about The Forward at RSN to see what they have to say, or to take the matter entirely to WP:BLPN if you can't hash it out here, but overall I would say it's a fairly weak source for a fairly contentious WP:BLP claim, and if someone invoked a BLP exception to WP:3RR, I would probably be inclined to support it. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The story has also been republished on Haaretz[6], which is surely an undisputably reliable source? As for your second point: that other reliable sources are covering this, surely indicates that the Forward is a reliable source? That's at least what the reliable source checklist asks of us. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank You Sir! We had other issues as well.

I sent a message to user:JasonfromNYC, because they had argument over the "Fringe position of Mr. Gorka's view". Would You please share Your point of view after Jason joins us?

Then, I had a proposal: perhaps it would be better, if we move the "Fringe views" to the Controversy section, and rename the "Nazi symphaties" title to something more neutral: Alleged connection with extreme right, or something like that. OK it is breitbart, but it says, that he is not antisemite (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/14/gorka-fake-news-left-media-attempts-smear-sebastian-gorka-nazi-sympathizer/). And I tried to insert a part to the "Fringe views" that Gorka is inspired by Samuel P. Huntington and Bernard Lewis, and they were deleted --Ltbuni (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Haaretz has been discussed a lot at RSN, and there seems to be mixed opinions, with some claiming outright that it is reliable and other's disagreeing. There's at least one discussion where the paper had to issue a pretty big clarification, although that's not totally damning, since every paper has probably done that at one point or another.

But anyway, the Haaretz story seems largely based on digging done by the Forward, so as I said, the real source is them, and that's where the real reliability issue lies. And just to be clear, the real question isn't whether it's generally reliable, but whether it's reliable enough to call someone antisemitic in a BLP, which is a pretty high standard. Probably the one thing that gives me pause more than anything else, is that the Forward story was published literally hours ago, so we've really not had time to see if the indisputably reliable sources pick up the story. With such a serious claim, it may just be the more responsible thing to wait a few days and see where the story goes. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, Breitbart is less than nothing. That's really the extent of the discussion as far as what they say. TimothyJosephWood 19:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What about attribution? Could the reporting in the Forward be put forth in the article if they are attributed to the Forward? Would that solve BLP concerns, at least until it's made 100% clear that the story comes from a reliable source and has been picked up by many other RS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally? I'm not comfortable with it even with attribution, just because that is a big and potentially libelous claim. Unfortunately, I have to go out of town and mostly offline in about an hour. I have however posted on WP:BLPN asking for additional input. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you for putting this dispute in the right venue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, we're here discussing the links drawn by an article in Forward and followed up by several other media sources, leading to a statement by the Anti-Defamation League cited in Haaretz, yes? Forward is a long-established and credible Jewish newspaper in New York, albeit one with a clear leftist bent, and Haaretz is a serious newspaper; the willingness of several other credible sources already cited by Snooganssnoogans to cite the Forward story without qualification as to source support its credibility, as does the resulting statement by the ADL on the question of anti-semitism. The ADL statement is in any case noteworthy. Disputing these sources as such doesn't seem reasonable I see that Timothy has put this over to WP:BLPN; is this actually a standard dispute resolution method? No one has replied in two days; are we just waiting, or what?Mikalra (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what's appropriate dispute resolution here, but I did ask RSN to chip on the reliability of the Forward, receiving only one comment[7]. The comment by Neutrality supports the inclusion of the content above and the reliability of the source. A statement by ADL would alone merit inclusion on any Wikipedia as far as I know, so the case for including the Forward piece has only been strengthened since the text was removed a few days ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I read the Hungarian sources she, Lili Bayer, the author of the Forward uses. I challenge her reliability on this issue, the biography of Gorka. Gorka is accused of "having links with bad guys" - it is based on 2 main arguments:

First: He was working for something in which Toroczkai/Jobbik/radical guys were or would be in the FUTURE.

The article repeats at least three times, that Mr. Gorka and Toroczkai were in the same organisation. However, her original sources also state that they did NOT become friends, what is more, when Mr. Gorka started to establish a new formation, the possibility of Toroczkay's membership was EXCLUDED. Here is the Hungarian text:

akiknek tehát semmi közük a Fideszhez. Molnár Tamás biztosan (Bégány Attila barátjával együtt), Gonda László és Bene Gábor valószínûsíthetõen, Toroczkai László kizárt. Source: https://kuruc.info/r/2/9073/ The very same she uses!

Who are gonna be in the party? Those who have nothing to do with the FIDESZ. Molnár and Bégány surelly, Gonda and Bene maybe Toroczkai excluded!!! (kizárt - past tense of kizárni: to exclude someone or something.

This is not in the article!! It is also missing, that some 4 months later Gorka had a very heated dispute with these guys, and left the whole thing....

Not surprisingly it is hard to follow the chronology of the article. So Gorka was in an organistation with the FORMER vice-president of the JOBBIK, who WAS NOT in the Jobbik then? Then, when the so-called Hungarian Guard was formed, it was not clear at the beginning, whether they became a nationalistic something! It was banned only years later - so accusing Gorka of supporting something which did something wrong AFTER Gorka left the country, not fair again...

In the biography of Bégány, there is a quotation, which is translated as "belief that without belonging to the Hungarian nation or to God it is possible to live, but not worth it." It is really sad, that Bayer Lili does not know the old Hungarian saying: Extra Hungariam non est vita, si est vita, non est ita, invented by Coelius Rhodiginus in the XVth century, who felt very confortable in Hungary. It became the slogan of the 18-19th century conservative Hungarian noblemen, who refused to serve in the Holy Roman Empire or outside the territory of Hungary - it is like : Ex pluribus, unus for the Americans. Now, in this context it gives the impression of a religious lunatic nationalist someone. It is poor scholarship, (or the intention to make a clickbait), just like identifying the bocskai jacket as leather jacket or what is also questions her abilities... BTW, Mr. Bégány was kicked out of the Jobbik, and I presume, that the others as well... https://jobbik.hu/etikai_eljaras_begany_attilaval_szemben

The Arpad flag WAS NOT the flag of the ARROW Cross movement. IT'S flag seemed like this. The Árpád stripes are like this Pretty much difference!! Please note that the cross in the Nyilas-flag has the very same extent as the Stars have in the US-Flag!! Is the US-flag a nazi one? BTW, the Arpad stripes are still in the Hungarian coat of arms. And "wearing a Hungarian medal known as Vitézi Rend" - ???????????? Poor or tendetious texts again.

And it is also sad, that Miss Bayer neglects that Molnár Tamás, vice president of the Jobbik, with whom Gorka had ties, (who was also kicked out of the Jobbik later), founded some foundation in memory of his best friend, BTW Jewish György Krassó...

Things are not so simple here...

Secondly

Gorka published articles (on what???? - it is not clear!!! ) in Demokrata, the editor of which became some radical member of something AFTER Gorka left the country. BTW, publishing in a journal qualifies You as one, who totally agrees with the spirit of the journal? Or in general, if You become a supporter of a movement, You check the former activities / whole CV of ALL of the leaders? I doubt that... Miss Bayer also forgets to mention that he wrote on INTERNATIONAL RELATION - otherwise, why doesn't she cite antisemitic remarks from Gorka? She gives only one specific example - which is basically true: The Treaty of Trianon was really unjust, even according to modern scholars - if You need, I will cite books.

A few monts after the creation his party,Gorka started to publish in left-liberal journals as well (So - following the logic of Lili Bayer - he became a liberal??? ), and critisized the whole JOBBIK and FIDESZ movement for being russophile. That is his article, in English: http://hvg.hu/english/20070130_gorka_sebestyen_right HVG is a left-liberal journal

To sum it up, WITHOUT original research, just reading the texts she used, I have serious doubts...--Ltbuni (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Other media questioning the relability of the report of Bayer Lili: https://pjmedia.com/blog/in-hungary-sebastian-gorka-fought-and-tried-to-undermine-the-anti-semitism-of-the-far-right/ --Ltbuni (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This may be a good situation to utilize an RfC in, since we've already tried to get more editors involved in the discussion to little avail. TimothyJosephWood 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Another one: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-bizarre-campaign-against-trump-aide-seb-gorka/article/2615854 --Ltbuni (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Another request for dispute resolution

Snooganssnoogans and I have been edit-warring and we've been unable to settle our differences on the following edits. Using the same sources he writes:

Gorka has been characterized as a fringe figure in academic and policy-making circles. According to the Washington Post, "Gorka’s academic credentials, particularly on the subject of ­Islam, are thin." The New Yorker describes Gorka as a "a self-styled expert on Islam and terrorism". His published works have not been widely cited among scholars of terrorism and national-security experts. Several experts have questioned both Gorka's knowledge of foreign policy issues and his professional behavior. Stephen M. Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, has described Gorka as an "oddball". Max Boot, the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, has described Gorka as an "anti-Muslim extremist". According to the New York Times, some have described Gorka as being part of "the Islamophobia industry, a network of researchers who have warned for many years of the dangers of Islam".

References

and I write, using the same sources, (with a heading “Views on terrorism")

Greg Jaffe, of the Washington Post, argues that Gorka’s views “signal a radical break” from the discourse “defined by the city’s Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite” of the last 16 years. Both Bush and Obama rejected the notion that Islam had anything to do with terrorism. Gorka rejects the opposing view, that the driving force of terror is “repression, alienation, torture, tribalism, poverty” or foreign interference. Inspired by Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order and by Bernard Lewis' Roots of Muslim rage, he thinks that “the power that [a] religion can have or a distortion of religion” is central to understanding the jihadi movement. His critics argue this approach could alienate Muslim allies. Gorka’s viewpoint was influenced by his comparison of Islamism to other totalitarian movements, where ideology played a central role. Pamela Engel, of the Business Insider, notes that Gorka has many critics but some “in the national-security community have defended Gorka.”

References

My problem with Snooganssnoogans’ edit is that it is essentially labeling and name-calling by Gorka’s political opponents. They label him “fringe,” “self-styled,” “oddball,” “extremist,” and add vague charges that question his expertise without explanation. My approach is to describe his views and the views of his critics. I explain how they differ. I also note his views were not in favor during the Bush-Obama years. But his idea that religious ideology plays are role was accepted by Bill Clinton’s staff as seen by their book [8] and by our reference to the pre-Bush experts Lewis and Huntington. I believe this flushes out what they are calling “oddball” and “fringe” among other pejoratives. I’d like a third opinion if someone can help us reach a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm confined to mobile until tomorrow evening, so I'm fairly limited. But I do think WP:LABEL may apply here. It's not that you can't use contentious labels, but they need to be widely used in sources, which is a higher standard than simply being from an RS. Probably a good rule of thumb is that if you can't find the scare quotes wording in at least two or three sources, then it probably fails LABEL. TimothyJosephWood 12:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

(i) There is nothing about Huntington or Lewis in the WaPo or BI pieces (none of the sources claim that his views are anything but fringe); (ii) the WaPo article says that Bush and Obama "played down" the role of Islam in terrorism, not that Islam had nothing to do with it; (iii) it is absolutely essential to note that Gorka's academic credentials are thin (supported by both the WaPo and BI pieces, and the views of his fellow academics); (iv) it is absolutely essential to note that Gorka's is "widely disdained" or considered fringe by fellow academics and policy-makers (which is not only the theme of both the WaPo and BI pieces, but also supported by three op-eds from fellow academics in Foreign Policy magazine and the New York Times); and (v) it is absolutely essential to note that he has been accused of Islamophobia (supported by NY Times, and attributed quotes from three fellow academics). All of this is amply supported by a large number of reliable sources and attributed quotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) Benjamin and Simon refer to Gorka’s approach as a “clash of civilizations” which is the title of Huntington’s book. (ii) WAPO does say “played down” but further down the article says Gorka makes a “radical break with the approach that Republicans and Democrats have taken over the past 16 years …” with Bush saying terror violates the “tenets of the Islamic faith” and “Islam is peace.” So yes Bush and Obama both say Islam has nothing to do with jihadi terror. (iii) The BI piece is derived from the WAPO piece. There is no definition of “thin” or what that might mean. As past National Security Advisors of the last 25 years had no academic credentials (often being lawyers) with the exception of Condi Rice and Susan Rice, it’s not clear how this is relevant to his position. (iv) it is pointed out that his approach differs from the establishment of the last 16 years, how, and why. (v) Done. I’ve added the appropriate reference to Benjamin and Simon, Clinton advisors who wrote on of the first books on jihadi terror. I’ve explained their view and why they think Gorka goes too far and why they call it Islamophobic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

What you had was mere name-calling. You sifted through sources for every pejorative. That's a gross BLP violation and WP:LABEL Jason from nyc (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed your recent edit, I think your recent edit is a vast improvement. I'd still make some changes but let's talk later. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Top section is problematical

The first sentence of this entry says, "Sebastian Lukács Gorkais...is an American military and intelligence analyst who works for the National Security Advisor."

According to National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Gorka does not work for him or the National Security Council. (NBC's Meet The Press, August 13, 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalbrian (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The initial section of the article is currently far too detailed. Per WP:LEAD, it's supposed to be a summary of the important aspects of topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Trim away. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Twenty days later it is still way too detailed and un-summary. I may just take a hand to it. --Bejnar (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite an improvement. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

NAME

"Lukacs von Gorka" ? I am not sure that it is correct. Verification/Source needed. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It was added in this edit by @Arbor to SJ:. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The "von" part is still unsourced. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Does he have noble ancestry? The German preposition "von" usually refers to nobility (both parents are Hungarian).Fakirbakir (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I doubt he has noble ancestry, but it is possible. Furthermore the L initial for his middle name was present in previous version so I am going to restore it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the "L" initial should not be restored unless source provided. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have found a source, so it's ok with me. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The middle name is here, and his PhD thesis has "Sebastian L. v. Gorka" and a monograph for the University of Central Florida "[9]". He has also gone by "Sebastian von Gorka" elsewhere, like in this 2016 radio appearance. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the 'v' is adopted by oathed members of the Vitezi Rend. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/03/a_top_trump_aide_has_been_strongly_linked_to_a_nazi_group.html Khamba Tendal (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be making the political act of removing the "v" just because it is politically awkward for Mr. Gorka and his reputation.

EDT

Why jou delete today story about v Gorka stance against FF nuke war pushed by neokońs ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/30/politics/gorka-leaving-white-house/ 132.116.254.2 (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2017

Add external citation to : http://www.newsweek.com/gorka-islamic-extremism-terrorism-right-wing-extremists-648754 (verify with these Other reliable sources)

      http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-remains-silent-following-minnesota-mosque-bombing 

      http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/trump-official-gorka-derided-mosque-attack-claim-170809071507801.html

Sebastian Gorka said there was a series of “fake hate crimes” in recent months, and suggested the White House won't say anything about a bomb attack on a mosque until they know who did it.

“We’ve had a series of crimes committed, alleged hate crimes, by right-wing individuals in the last six months that turned out to actually have been propagated by the left,” he said. “So let’s wait and see and allow local authorities to provide their assessment. And then the White House will make its comments.” CharlesPrice1964 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. More specifically, where should this citation go? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

KKK?

I've removed the following:

In addition, he admires white supremacist teachings, believing the Ku Klux Klan is the "strongest advocate against Islamic extremism." "Obama Neuters War on Islamic Terrorists". Accuracy In Media. May 23, 2012. Retrieved June 3, 2016.

...as the given link does not appear to support the claim. There is a BreitBart column where he is quoted as mentioning the KKK; however, that also does not appear to support the claim (even if their quotes are accurate, which given the source seems questionable). Google on the "quoted" phrase turns up no results, even without his name. This would appear to need much, much better sourcing. Abb3w (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Order of Vitéz membership

I've removed the following sources and the content they were used to support;[10] two are blogs which are poor sources to begin with, and otherwise the conclusions which were being drawn from them likely violates our WP:BLP policies.

• "Did Gorka Really Wear A Medal Linked To Nazi Ally To Trump Inaugural Ball?". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved 2017-02-14.
• Balogh, Eva S. (2017-02-13). "Donald Trump's influential advisers: Sebastian and Katharine Gorka". Hungarian Spectrum. Retrieved 2017-02-14.
• "Why Is Trump Adviser Wearing Medal of Nazi Collaborators?". LobeLog. 2017-02-12. Retrieved 2017-02-13.

-- Kendrick7^talk 04:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Just some recipients of the Order of Vitéz: Vilmos Apor, Géza Lakatos and Vilmos Nagy de Nagybaczon. Yes, they were all Holocaust-perpetrators, indeed. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

After WW2 the Order of Vitez was no longer a state order. According to Gorka his father received it in 1979 therefore if my understanding is correct it's an unofficial order created by Hungarian exiles. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Order of Vitéz has some of the trappings of an award of nobility, in that it is partially inherited, as is made clear in the sources cited at the Order of Vitéz article. This title was made hereditary for the first son in line. If the son was of sound physical and mental condition he would inherit the title "vitéz" at the age seventeen. It is clear that Stephen Gorka did use the title, see, for example, his dissertation. As such he would have per force been a member of the order, by reason of his father, whether or not the order was still a governmental one. As one is required to renounce foreign titles as part of naturalization, it seems that Sebastian Gorka did so, as he no longer uses the "vitéz" in his name. On this basis, I have removed the "dubious" from his former membership. --Bejnar (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Bejnar, Gorka's father was never a member of the Order of Vitez. Fact check pls. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about I did check sources. According to the sources Paul Gorka was inducted into the order by the exile group, even though the official order had been suspended (outlawed) in Hungary in 1945. --Bejnar (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a quote from Bayer, Lili; Cohler-Esses, Larry (16 March 2017). "Nazi-Allied Group Claims Top Trump Aide Sebastian Gorka As Sworn Member". The Forward Association.

Gorka, who pledged his loyalty to the United States when he took American citizenship in 2012, is himself a sworn member of the Vitézi Rend, according to both Gyula Soltész — a high-ranking member of the Vitézi Rend’s central apparatus — and Kornél Pintér — a leader of the Vitézi Rend in Western Hungary who befriended Gorka’s father through their activities in the Vitézi Rend. Soltész, who holds a national-level leadership position at the Vitézi Rend, confirmed to the Forward in a phone conversation that Gorka is a full member of the organization. “Of course he was sworn in,” Pintér said, in a phone interview. “I met with him in Sopron [a city near Hungary’s border with Austria]. His father introduced him.”

--Bejnar (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

FOX template

Since he is no longer listed in Current Fox News Channel anchors and correspondents, should the template be removed? -- There is no mention in the article that he was a regular FOX News contributor (which he was). 07:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced content

Two editors persist in removing material that's reliably sourced and accurately described[11]. One user says that it's POV, even though the content is attributed and uses the same language as the reliable sources. The other user claims that he "introduced and summarized the WAPO article before [I] did", which is meaningless nonsense. The user left out valid content from the WaPo article, content that the editor later scrubbed off of this page when I added it, even though it was validated by a second reliable source. Anyway, what does it have to do with anything that the editor used the WaPo source for something else? In short, there are absolutely no reasons to omit this content from the page: it is accurate, reliably sourced and notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the source is acceptable as per WP:BIASED, even if we leave out the POV content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we should give the title "Controversy" instead of "Nazi claims" - it would be more neutral. BTW, the Independent and the other paper use a blog as a source (http://lobelog.com/why-is-trump-adviser-wearing-medal-of-nazi-collaborators/) - unfortunatelly, this blog uses another one as a source (hungarianspectrum.com) - unfortunatelly the author of this later blog is both wrong (Gorka's grandfather WAS NOT a "vitéz") both biased, since she is pushing some political agenda (she is a founder of the CanadianHungarianDemocraticCharter (see: Stevan Harnad)) and was discredited (http://ferenckumin.tumblr.com/post/79978771132/the-hungary-expert-discredited-on-twitter). What is more, I know no publication of her dealing with the Order of Vitéz. --Ltbuni (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

We add what reliable sources and there are now four reliable sources saying the same thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And I added reliable sources that prove the opposite: the expert of the Order of Vitéz, Breitbart and Mr. Gorka himself and the Heti Válasz. I trust the expert more than the politically motivated journals, BTW. Don't misunderstand me, I do NOT oppose this to be included, that he is wearing that medal, etc. I only suggest the renaming of the section from "Nazi claims" to "Controversy" - since they proved to be wrong, I feel it insulting to him. And I am not sure whether the journals admitted their mistake either...--Ltbuni (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think Breitbart is a reliable source, then you don't know what a reliable source is. Wikipedia policy on this is very simple: we report what reliable sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Washington Post article is an important article in that it describes in detail Gorka's viewpoint and how it differs from the establishment viewpoint of the last 16 years. We don't copy the whole article but as editors it is up to us to come to a consensus on a summary of the essence of the article. I introduced such a summary; perhaps it is too terse and could be expanded. I wrote "Rejecting the approach of the previous two administrations, Gorka sees Islamic terrorism as essentially ideologically motivated and rooted in a totalitarian religious mindset. He backs President Trump's usage of the phrase 'Radical Islamic Terrorism.'" Thus, Gorka is abandoning the establishment's approach of the last 16 years as neither Bush nor Obama's analysts stressed belief and ideology as key factors. The dominant view was that it was terrorism by extremists, not radical Islam. I think the readers should know what the change is. I wasn't alone in summarizing Gorka this way as User:Bejnar also summarized Gorka's view this way in the lead. Consequently we have a consensus for this summary. Why don't you explain why you think this consensus is not sufficient and argue why your changes should be the new consensus. This is how Wikipedia works. (PS, I'm not discussing the "vitez" controversy but the other edit.) Jason from nyc (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me understand this comment. I'm using that source, along with another source, to add content on Gorka's role in academia. I have no clue what you're trying to say above. Why is it relevant that you have used one of those sources for something else? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I asked that you defend your edit. You don't want to talk about it? I've talked about mine. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please explain in clear and coherent terms why my reliably sourced, accurate content needs to be scrubbed wholesale from this page. The fact that it's reliably sourced, accurate and notable is sufficient grounds for inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So you're not going to explain and defend your edit. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have. Please explain why you removed the three-four sentences that I added, all of which were (i) accurate; (ii) reliably sourced and (iii) notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You shown none of that. You've only asserted that. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There are two sources cited for the four sentences that I've put forth. One of the sentences is literally a quote from the Washington Post article. Which one of the sentences is inaccurate, not reliably sourced or notable? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss your edit and the articles. Go ahead! Jason from nyc (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Why won't you discuss your edits? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the description that you and Bejnar agreed upon for some other BS. What does that have to do with anything? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A (summary of) source(s) on opinions about Gorka of professionals in Gorka's "field"

This is just to ensure that the editors of this article are aware of this. Layzeeboi (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The editors are already aware of this. Two of the editors are whitewashing it from the page and refusing to even put forth reasons for why it doesn't belong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We're still discussing it. Most of the Business Insider article comes from the Washington Post article, which goes into more depth. We all agree that it belongs in the article but we haven't yet agree on how to summarize it. Let's work together instead of dismissing opposing opinions. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't even attempt to discuss it. You removed the text in whole and refused to explain what was wrong with the text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You made the bold edit. The onus of proof is on you. You refused to say what is right about. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you still edit-warring instead of explaining your edits in the talk? You haven't yet once explained your edit! Jason from nyc (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

adviser of victor orbán

The source (a radical leftist BLOG! BTW) state, that: "Hundreds of articles have appeared in the Hungarian media in the last few days about Gorka’s fabulous career. He and his family left Hungary for the United States only nine years ago, and yet he will be an important adviser to the president of the United States. These articles note that he was also an adviser to Viktor Orbán."

Bit vague...

I checked the Hungarian Wiki, and it says that there is no written evidence, whether he was an advisor - seems more like an urbanlegend, than reality. He WAS working for a think-tank, supporting the Orbán gvmt's decisions, that is true, (so, don't know, why it was deleted) but the other thing? I am not so sure about it. --Ltbuni (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Uniform of the Order of Vitéz

He was wearing a traditional Hungarian coat. --Ltbuni (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop removing content derived from reliable sources with nothing but your own original research to justify the removal. If one reliable source is wrong, come to the talk page and show how by using a different reliable source (e.g. if a NY Times article is wrong, show so using a Wall Street Journal). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

1. It is not a uniform, it is a traditional Hungarian coat. I haven't found in the Regulation of the Order of Vitéz reference to uniforms

2 You cited a NYT article about his islamophobic views: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/us/politics/donald-trump-islam.html?_r=0 The article itself says that " This worldview borrows from the “clash of civilizations” thesis of the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, and combines straightforward warnings about extremist violence with broad-brush critiques of Islam" some line later : "Others with similar views of Islam include Sebastian Gorka, who..." --Ltbuni (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

(I) I have absolutely no clue and I don't care. Please find reliable sources to back up your claims. (II) The first quoted sentence describes Trump's worldview + the second sentence follows text on Stephen Bannon's worldview and is put in the context of "They all reflect the hard-line opinions of what some have described as the Islamophobia industry, a network of researchers who have warned for many years of the dangers of Islam and were thrilled by Mr. Trump’s election." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Accusing someone of wearing a nazi uniform is a bit too harsh not to care about ...http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sebastian-gorka-inauguration-medal-order-vitez-horthy The experts had no problem with the uniform, "said that the “bocskai” he wore was popular during Horthy's rule and today is often worn by members of the “right-wing” on special occasions" It has nothing to do with nazism or antisemitism.

2. I don't get it... Actually it proves that Mr. Gorka1s ideas were infulenced by Huntington--Ltbuni (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

3. More info on his jacket and the whole thing: http://hungarytoday.hu/news/hungarian-trump-aide-sebastian-gorka-order-vitez-controversy-67726 --Ltbuni (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Agenda pushing editor adding "material"

I removed some "material" about plagiarism. Has this been widely covered? Has there been an actual accusation? This doesn't need to be added unless there is consensus for its inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

First you claimed that the material was not in the source. I see now that you've given up on that and moved on to the next frivolous excuse to exclude content. Now, you're back to your modus operandi with the stalling tactic, asking that there be a consensus before accurate and reliably sourced material be included. The section as it was was completely fair and accurate, quoting the Politico and then quoting Gorka's response. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice diversion tactic, just try to answer the questions.--Malerooster (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, Malerooster. WP:AGF folks. Political articles are already going to be controversial, even if we discuss it like pinnacles of civility. Making quips at each other is only going to make it worse, and make it harder for us to actually improve the article. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Gorka did not publish peer-reviewed research in Nature Biotechnology. It's a one-page correspondence letter.

Ltbuni has yet again reverted reliably sourced content and justified it through his/her original research. While the research section of Nature Biotechnology is peer-reviewed, the correspondence section is not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If You take a look at the edit list of the page, You could see, that I inserted his phd dissertation, with his publication list - I could not copy all of it. Just a few examples.

Counter-Insurgency Theories comeback. In: Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor, April 5th, 2007

The American-Polish alliance and the role of Central Europe in US Security Policy. In: Foreign Policy Review, Teleki László Institute, Vol 3, No 1-2. Budapest, 2005

Gorka Sebestyén - Sulliwan Richard: Biological Toxins. In: Jane's Intelligence Review, 2002

Hungary Reinvents its defence. Jane's Intelligence Review, May, 1997

Hungarian Military Reform and Peecekeeping Efforts. NATO-review, Autumn, 1997

"Biological Toxins: a bioweapon threat in the 21st century. Security dialogue 2002, Vol. 33 issue 2.

And so on...I continue tomorrow...I don't think, that they are all just letters...So I remove the libell...--Ltbuni (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A PhD dissertation is not a peer-reviewed journal; from the relevant pages for NATO Review, Jane's Intelligence Review and other IHS publications are not peer-reviewed either. Security Dialogue does appear to be peer-reviewed. Would you agree to the phrasing "Gorka has only published one peer-reviewed article (a review on biological toxins)," or identify other articles with documentation that their venue is formally peer-reviewed? Mikalra (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned his PhD as a possible source for his publications - so we could get more publications from it. BTW, he published in a bunch of Hungarian journals, which are peer reviewed. Since he claims to have written some 140 articles, I highly recommend refraining from such descdription as : " did not publish in peer review jorunal, or only one peer reviewed - until we get enough data on his publication list. I am on it, but this might take some time.--Ltbuni (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

For example, he published in the Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor. Maybe I am wrong, and misunderstood something but it gives me the impression that it IS a peer reviewed one: http://www.integrity-ethics.com/journal/115194 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

And, if I am not mistaken, he has publications at Routledge, at McGraw Hill Professional and he edited a book at the Publisher of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences - so, he does not seem to be a total fraud. --Ltbuni (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Security Dialogue is definitely peer-reviewed, so the claim that he has zero peer-reviewed publications would seem to be false. Routledge and McGraw Hill are commercial presses, so questionable if they are peer-reviewed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, I found an article of his in the Harvard International Review as well - I think, it is peer-reviewed, but I am not sure.--Ltbuni (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Improving the summary of Benjamin and Simon

The following doesn’t summarize the Simon and Benjamin article accurately:

Steven Simon, a professor at Amherst College, and Daniel Benjamin, the director of the Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College, have described Gorka as an "islamophobic huckster" and say that he has developed "a reputation as an ill-informed Islamophobe".[35][31] According to Benjamin and Simon, "Gorka sees Islam as the problem, rather than the uses to which Islam has been put by violent extremists. The contrast between them and the policy makers of the previous three presidential administrations could not be clearer: For their predecessors, the key has been to fight terrorists, not assault an Abrahamic religion."[31] Benjamin and Simon also take issue with Gorka’s claim that previous administrations failed to understand the importance of ideology in Islamic militancy, saying that this is a "supremely uninformed and ahistoric claim" and note that declassified government assessments going back nearly 40 years have examined ideology's role in Islamic militancy.

Generally if one can’t summarize an article in one’s own words, one most likely doesn’t understand the article. Quote picking is inherently dangerous, as the quote taken out of context can give a wrong impression. Benjamin and Simon were Bill Clinton’s expert of Islamic terrorism. They were in the process of writing their classic book, “The Age of Sacred Terror” when 9/11 happened. They quickly updated their book and it was one of the first to address the jihadi movement. They review the history of the Salafi movement from ibn Taymiyya to the present.

They rejected Bush’s “Islam is peace” speech saying:

”But neither President’s necessary and useful political speech should obscure the realities of September 11: the motivation for the attack was neither political calculation, strategic advantage, nor wanton bloodlust. It was to humiliate and slaughter those who defied the hegemony of God; it was to please Him by reasserting His primacy. It was an act of cosmic war. What appears to be senseless violence actually made a great deal of sense to the terrorists and their sympathizers, for whom this mass killing was an act of redemption. Only by understanding the religious nature of the attacks of September 11 can we make any sense of their unprecedented scale and their intended effects. …” p.40

Clearly these two see radical Islam as Islamic. Their complaint isn’t that Gorka sees religion as playing a role. Indeed, they believe they were there first! As you rightly noted in your summary the government has “examined ideology's role.” The dismiss Gorka as a Johnny-come-lately: “The suggestion that Mr. Gorka brings new insight is self-gratifying, grandiose malarkey.”

If Gorka and the authors both see Islam as a factor in jihadi dynamics, what makes Gorka’s approach Islamophobic in the authors’ mind? You choose their quote: “Gorka sees Islam as the problem, rather than the uses to which Islam has been put by violent extremists.” But they give no examples of Gorka saying this. Instead they point to Gorka’s statements that other factors are irrelevant. Early in the article they say he dismisses factors “… like poor governance, repression, poverty and war. ‘This is the famous approach that says it is all so nuanced and complicated,’ Mr. Gorka recently told The Washington Post. ‘This is what I completely jettison.’”

Their complain is that Gorka’s analysis is one dimensional and thus over relies on religion as a driver. They return to this in the end: “… an abundance of scholarship on jihadists is that religious doctrine is not their sole or even primary driver. The issues that Mr. Gorka so defiantly ‘jettisons’ actually do play a role.”

This is why I believe a better summary of the article would read:

Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon take issue with Gorka’s claim that previous two administrations fail to understand the importance of ideology and they give a number of examples of how government analysts “going back nearly 40 years have examined ideology's role in Islamic militancy.” They argue that by jettisoning the role of “poor governance, repression, poverty and war” and failing to realize that “religious doctrine is not their sole or even primary driver” Gorka has adopted an Islamophobic approach of finding “Islam as the problem, rather than the uses to which Islam has been put by violent extremists.”

Let’s remember that Benjamin and Simon were both part of the Bill Clinton administration. Benjamin was an advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign and it can be assumed that they lost a chance of returning to center of power instead of remaining on the fringes of power. Their criticism isn’t disinterested. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I quote the scholars is because I prefer to let them speak in their words and because I don't want to engage in an endless interpretation exercise of what they "truly" mean, keeping in mind all the edit-warring that has occurred here. I don't have a particular problem with the text you added, except that it is necessary to add the harsh language that the authors (and a large body of scholars) use when talking about Gorka. Gorka isn't some normal academic whom they disagree with but deeply ill-informed, malicious and widely disdained by his peers. Academics don't resort to that kind of language lightly and it's telling that such a large number of academics use that language about Gorka. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Gun charge

I have removed the short section on the gun charge against the subject due to the following:

1. He was allowed to board the plane, so apparently the TSA didn't see the issue as a credible immediate threat
2. The whole thing was only a misdemeanor anyway
3. The court case resulted in dropped charges and a $150 fine, so it's almost on the level of a particularly bad traffic violation
4. Even the source refers to the incident as a genuine accident on Gorka's part

Finally, recording such a relatively minor happening detracts from any serious issues that need to be covered in the article, and makes it seem like Wikipedia is trying up dirt rather than neutrally address the issues according to their seriousness and relative WP:DUEWEIGHT. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose removal of off topic sentence

While I'll be the first to say that there is no deadline, we probably also need to square with the fact that this is an article that gets between five and thirty five thousand page view a day, and we need to fix ourselves.

So toward that end, I propose we remove the following sentence, which I've already tagged as being off topic:

The Order of Vitéz is listed in the U. S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook under "Organizations Under the Direction of the Nazi Government of Germany," and membership in this group is grounds for denial of a U.S. visa.

At the end of the day, this sentence is entirely about a topic which is not the subject of the article, and if it needs said, it should be said on the main article for the group, and interested readers should be referred there. TimothyJosephWood 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Times of Israel source says "The US State Department lists Vitézi Rend as a Nazi-linked group, which could render members ineligible for visas," to provide context for why this is so controversial. I don't see why that should be omitted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not about the subject of the article; it's about a related subject which has its own main article. TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't this get to the crux of why this is a controversy for Gorka? Being associated with a "Nazi-linked group" which has been grounds for visa rejection? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but as a hundred year old entity, there's lots we can say about the Order of Vitéz which we can back up with reliable sources, some of it probably bad, some of it probably good. To do that neutrally, we address it all on the main article, and direct readers there, where each can be given their due weight, rather than picking one or two good or bad things to talk about here. Even the Times of Israel piece goes into significantly more detail than we do here, and we risk running afoul of WP:CHERRYPICKING of we are using our own editorial judgement in what bits to include and what bits to exclude, even in the same source. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is all the ToI piece has to say about the group: "a Hungarian order of merit closely associated with Nazi Germany. The order was founded in 1920 by Miklós Horthy, who served as regent of Hungary until 1944, and comprised his supporters. Horthy was an ally of Adolf Hitler and collaborated with the Nazis throughout most of World War II. During the war, confiscated Jewish property was distributed to members of the order by the Hungarian government... The US State Department lists Vitézi Rend as a Nazi-linked group, which could render members ineligible for visas." You're telling me that this is a significantly detailed piece that someone has scoured for off-hand details, and that it would be cherrypicking to note that the US government officially lists the group as Nazi-linked? The whole reason why this is a controversy is because the group has been accused of being Nazi-linked and you're arguing that it's cherry-picking to say that the US government officially considers the group Nazi-linked in a section about a controversy revolving around accusations that the group is Nazi-linked? Seems to be as due and at the core of this controversy as one could possibly get. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. What about a compromise of simplifying and condensing into a single sentence, changing this:

Gorka was a member of the Order of Vitéz (Hungarian: Vitézi Rend), a hereditary order of merit founded by Miklós Horthy in 1920, by reason of his father having been made a member. The Order of Vitéz is listed in the U. S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook under "Organizations Under the Direction of the Nazi Government of Germany," and membership in this group is grounds for denial of a U.S. visa.

to this:

Gorka was a member of the Order of Vitéz, a group the US State Department lists as a Nazi-linked group.

Much more concise, still hits the high point you seem to be most concerned about. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, your version there is an improvement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 18:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Total Nonsense. OR. Snooganssnoogans, the Order of Vitez was ABOLISHED after WW2 (1947-48). Gorka (or Gorka's father) was never a member of the Order. Some unknown Hungarian exiles gave Gorka's father a "Vitez" badge in 1979. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That Gorka's PhD thesis is sub par is absolutely relevant information

That experts in the field are declaring that his PhD thesis would never be credited at a reputable academic institution and that it wouldn't even be accepted as an undergrad thesis, is absolutely essential information for an individual who claims to be an expert and whose lede brandishes his doctorate and talks about his specialization on the topics of "irregular warfare, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism". This is not something that academics would say lightly. It's doing the readers a disservice to omit this information, and hide it as a reference under a general "a number of academics and policy-makers questioning both Gorka's knowledge of foreign policy issues and his professional behavior." They are not merely questioning his knowledge, but his academic credentials. It adds something new. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it matter if his thesis was stellar if he was still widely regarded as a non-expert? Would it matter if his thesis was terrible if he was widely regarded as an expert? Seems like his status as an expert or non-expert is really the relevant detail, and his thesis is almost trivia. TimothyJosephWood 20:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it matters. A PhD implies a certain basic level of knowledge and expertise, which is uncoincidentally why this individual brandishes his PhD unlike any other academic I know (this is even something that Dan Drezner comments on as something bizarre). That fellow academics believe that he lacks even this basic level of expertise is essential information. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think "widely disdained within his own field" and being an "islamophobic huckster" pretty much establishes the lack of a "basic level of expertise". It's not necessary to carry on ad nauseam...and his high school teacher thought he was stupid...and his mom never really loved him...and he doesn't know the difference between who and whom...and he's colorblind... TimothyJosephWood 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There are scholars who are widely disdained within their fields and whose knowledge have been questioned without having their degrees challenged. Given that you think that it has been comprehensively shown that Gorka lacks a basic level of expertise, should we remove mention of his doctorate, his specialization and 140+ [mostly non-peer-reviewed] articles in the lede? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How widely has this "material" been covered by RS? How big a deal is this? --Malerooster (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It was previously only supported by two citations, but it does makes sense in an effort to balance out the puffery in the lead. I prefer to excise the puffery, which I've taken a whack at. TimothyJosephWood 21:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, but I still think that the issue of the thesis merits inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It was supported by two authorities in the field of international relations. This is after all the page of an academic, and we shouldn't shy away from matters related to his academic career and credentials, even if the matter of his PhD thesis isn't front-page material for the WSJ or NYT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, if "How widely has this "material" been covered by RS" is going to be the criteria for inclusion, I'd love to have a whack at his career section, the content of which has in most cases never been covered by 2-3 reliable news outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Pour the coal to it. There's definitely a lot of around for a highly visible BLP. TimothyJosephWood 21:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your expression 'pour the coal on it' had me on a sticky wicket, it had me stumped. 10:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding antisemitism

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 the article cover the story by The Forward regarding Gorka and antisemitism?

• The Forward published a story accusing Gorka of being antisemitic.
• This story was cited by others, including Haaretz, Foreign Policy, and New York Magazine.
• The story by The Forward in particular has been questioned by other sources, including PJ Media, The Washington Examiner, and Forbes.

TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support -- (I) The Forward is a reliable source. (II) This is news reporting by the Forward, not an opinion piece. (III) The reporting has been cited and republished by other reliable sources. (IV) The reporting is notable, as seen by how it's been cited by others, led to calls from the Anti-Defamation League that Gorka clarify his views and rebuttals from conservative outlets and commentators. I am also pinging Neutrality who is unaffiliated with this Wikipedia page but did chip in on the Forward's reliability on the reliable source noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- (I)The article of the Forward itself is not reliable and has serious problems. These are higlighted by me above, and by the mentioned newspapers. The problems: "guilty by association" fallacy, factual mistakes, out of context texts. These accusations were also refuted by notable persons. (II) The author of the Forward is a contributor to the Politico, which is hostile to the Trump administration, and this journal of hers was banned from the White House, which questions her neutral attitude towards certain subjects as well.(III.) The Forward was only echoed by the other newspapers, they did not conduct investigation by themselves - while the opposing articles seem to bring up argumentations, which differ from each other, possibly based on their own research. (IV.) So the notability of this specific and libellous claim (having symphaties and ties with nazi or neonazi persons or organisations) would be based only on a single source, which is not widely known either, since only one person affirmed its reliablity. --Ltbuni (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Politico is hostile to the Trump association? What? I read Politico, and it appears to try to be balanced. Is this the case that the truth has a bias? Ricardianman (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If it really is "not reliable" then you need to take it up at WP:RSN. But I don't think so. Also, there are other sources here. "The problems:" you mention consist of your own personal evaluation of a reliable secondary source - that's original research which violates WP:NOR. Politico is a reliable source as well (and them getting "banned from the White House" actually strengthens that, not subtracts from it - anyway, that's a weird ass argument to use). Notability has nothing to do with it (that only determines whether we have articles on subjects in the first place).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose That the newspaper, in general, be a reliable source is a prerequisite--a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. Were it otherwise we wouldn't have such extensive written rules and discussions. Consider a few.

We find, on the WP:RS page: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." It is WP:NOTGOSSIP. It is not WP:NOTRUMOUR as "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." And it is certainly WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The source is reliable: it has editorial control, a long history, fact-checking, and strong WP:USEBYOTHERS (Ha'aretz and Foreign Policy are respected publications); the writer is a professional journalist. Ltbuni's opinion seems to me to be bizarre: Politico is not "hostile to Trump" and being "banned from the White House" has absolutely zero bearing on reliability. If there are counters to the Forward piece, then we can discuss citing those. (Although really, if your only counter is a right-wing blog and a "contributor blog" op-eds, that doesn't say very much.) And if there are wording or attribution questions, then of course those can also be hashed out. But banishing this well-sourced content from the article altogether makes no sense. Neutrality^talk 01:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The Forward has a history of very biased articles. -- WV ● ✉✓ 04:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

An assertion is not an argument. Provide evidence. Else, I can make up any kinds of crazy stuff I want. Better yet, take this up at WP:RSN. Also "bias" does not disqualify a source. Lack of reliability does. Two different things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support coverage of the 'hit piece', as well as coverage of the criticisms listed above. I also support inclusion of the breitbart piece by Gorka for the purpose of including Gorka's response. I'll lay out my rationale and specific recommendations below.

Note: As can be seen below, I was pinged to weigh in by Timothyjosephwood. I haven't been involved in editing this article before now.

With respect to the Forward piece: I think it's undeniable that Forward has an easily recognizable, pro-Jewish/Israeli POV. I think it's somewhat debatable whether this POV is pervasive enough to disqualify them as a reliable source on issues involving antisemitism, though I will note that I've seen the Forward wholeheartedly embrace dubious claims which other outlets treat with suspicion, when it suits them. So nothing in it should be stated in wikivoice. I think a brief (collective) mention of the favorable coverage this source has gotten from other outlets is acceptable, though it shouldn't be given much weight, as it lends credence to the Forward's claims, which we want to be sure to characterize as their claims, not as facts.

With respect to the criticisms listed above, I believe that a brief (individual) mention could be made of each one for the sake of establishing that there is a not-inconsiderable controversy over the veracity of the original source. I think the total coverage of the criticisms (including Gorka's response in breitbart) should be balanced to the coverage of the original piece and it's favorable coverage elsewhere. So one or two paragraphs each for the "antisemitic" argument and one or two paragraphs for the "not antisemitic" argument. If there must be an unbalance, then it should be in favor of the criticisms, though we should bear in mind that five paragraphs of criticism to one paragraph about the 'hit piece' is going to end up looking utterly ridiculous.

With respect to the breitbart piece, I believe it should be limited to a single, short quote from Gorka, and perhaps a statement in wikivoice that Gorka disputed the claims in a piece for breitbart. While breitbart is categorically unreliable, we can still use it to quote Gorka and to summarize his opinions on this. Gorka, notably, hasn't come out anywhere else to complain about breitbart editing the piece he wrote for them, so we can safely assume that it accurately represents Gorka's views. With that in mind, almost any outlet or medium would be acceptable for citing Gorka's views, per WP:PRIMARY. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - clearly reliable sources, the opposition comes down to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Objection to RfC. The proposal doesn't explain how we'd be covering the Forward source, which is essential to making this decision. The RfC says the source accuses Gorka himself of antisemitism, but that is false, and including that in our article would be a clear BLP violation. The source merely reports on certain connections. Those connections may be reliable, but the next question is whether the connections are noteworthy and whether their inclusion would be neutral. These sorts of "so-and-so has ties with such-and-such" pieces always require a heavy scrutiny. I simply can't evaluate this without seeing proposed language. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the text that I wrote and which was removed. The RFC ought to be about this text: "In February 2017, the Forward reported that while Gorka was active in Hungarian politics, he had "close ties then to Hungarian far-right circles". The Forward also reported that he "has in the past chosen to work with openly racist and anti-Semitic groups and public figures." The Forward found that "Gorka’s involvement with the far right includes co-founding a political party with former prominent members of Jobbik, a political party with a well-known history of anti-Semitism; repeatedly publishing articles in a newspaper known for its anti-Semitic and racist content; and attending events with some of Hungary’s most notorious extreme-right figures." Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt issued a statement calling on Gorka to "make it clear that he disavows the message and outlook of far-right parties such as Jobbik, which has a long history of stoking anti-Semitism in Hungary.”" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the RfC, at least in my mind, was more toward an evaluation of the sources, which is why it didn't include proposed language. Of course how it is included is important, but since there seems to be some disagreement on the veracity of the claim itself, that seemed a lot like the first issue that needed settled. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that that sort of treatment would be neutral. It puts too much emphasis on Forward, rather than Gorka, and parrots language that appears to be biased. To be clear, I'm not saying that the Forward source is unreliable, just that we should be focusing on its factual reporting (the connections themselves) and presenting them in our own voice. If this can't be done neutrally then we shouldn't mention the source at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Until such a proposal is put forward, my !vote is oppose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Forward is a long-established and credible Jewish newspaper in New York, albeit one with a clear leftist bent, and it has been picked up by several other even more credible sources. The ensuing statement by the ADL on the question of anti-semitism is clearly notable in itself. We should be careful about both directly asserting antisemitism or membership per se in antisemitic groups on Gorka's part, and should be careful not to engage in simple guilt by association, but the basic thrust of this reporting and the fact of the ADL statement should be included.Mikalra (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Summoned here by bot. Support' The Forward is a reliable source, often cited by other reliable sources, and this article was. If other reliable sources critique or contest their assertions, then that refutation should be included as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As Dr. Fleischman points out, no text is proposed, and given that The Forward does not actually accuse Gorka of being antisemetic as stated at the head of the RfC (The Forward points to his "Ties To Hungary’s Anti-Semitic Far Right", not the same thing), I am reluctant to give carte blanche to unspecified text, although attributed this material might be usable. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Forward does not seem to be accusing Gorka of being an anti-Semite directly. Instead, it is attempting to smear him by association. That's a smarmy tactic to avoid a defamation lawsuit. This is a BLP and anything that remotely denigrates the subject is not to be tolerated. Gorka is not known for being an anti-Semite. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support with clarification: It's a big enough news story that we should cover it for completeness, but not as "the truth", but rather as a disputed claim that has been repeated by some publishers while challenged by other sources. This is our normal approach to "the sources are in conflict" and there's no reason to deviate from it here, since the origin source is a normally/presumptively reliable one (in operation for over a century), not some self-published crank blog.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Summoned by bot. Just by coincidence a similar issue arose at a different article, so the subsection of WP:V is fresh in my mind. Turn to WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Exceptional claims require multiple - I repeat multiple - high quality sources. Italics in original. One source, cited by others, will not do. Whether this publication is indeed in the realm of a "high quality" source is debatable at best. It is a niche ethnic website. Note that this requirement is stronger than what you see in WP:BLP. It must be complied with. If and when actual, indisputable high quality sources (note the plural) deal with this claim, on their own and not repeating what this source says, it can go in. Until then our policy requires that it stay out. There is no deadline. We wait. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is a single source, with questionable reliability and objectivity, stating that Gorka has "ties" to anti-Semitic groups. This is a very weak and silly connection. It seems like another anti-Trump attack by an anti-Trump publication. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Apologies to all who are deeply involved, but this is an apparently deeply nuanced issue, and it's not something that one or two uninvolved editors can decide. I'm also going to ping User:MjolnirPants to the discussion as an uninvolved editor who disagrees with me as often as they agree, and whose opinion I respect. TimothyJosephWood 23:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• User:Neutrality When you refer to a right-wing blog and a "contributor blog" to what exactly are you referring? TimothyJosephWood 01:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The PJ Media link and this Forbes link ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."). I should say that this critical coverage actually strengthens the case for mentioning the reporting in the article because it demonstrates that the whole affair prompted much commentary. Neutrality^talk 01:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I had problems with the content as well - that is why I questionned the good faith of the Forward. When I wrote "banned" I used the vocabulary of the Washington Post: "White House press secretary Sean Spicer banned reporters from CNN, the New York Times, Politico, the Los Angeles Times and BuzzFeed from attending a “gaggle,” a non-televised briefing, but gave access to a number of other reporters, including those representing conservative outlets."--Ltbuni (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we can probably both agree that characterizing them as blogs is a little hyperbolic, and for what it's worth, Richard Miniter, who wrote the piece in Forbes does seem to be a professional investigative journalist and author, although he has admittedly not been without his detractors. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The banning from the White House... that's actually sort of a badge of honor these days. Anyway, it has no bearing on reliability of the source (for some reason they also banned Daily Mail) Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come on: "a badge of honor these days" ?? As I explained, the article itself has serious reliability issues, concerning its content. Another one from the Forward: "In 2006, Gorka defended the use of the Arpad flag, which Hungary’s murderous Arrow Cross Party used as their symbol. The Hungarian Arrow Cross Party killed thousands of Jews during World War II, shooting many of them alongside the Danube River and throwing them into the water. Gorka told the news agency JTA at the time that “if you say eight centuries of history can be eradicated by 18 months of fascist distortion of symbols, you’re losing historic perspective.” What does it mean, this "eight hundreds of history"? History of what? If You want to find it out, please scroll up to the dispute resolution section, and it all gets clear how the author confuses thing with each other. She has an MA from Oxford, BTW, so I think it was on purpose... --Ltbuni (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Umm, yes. It is. You seemed to argue that when a news organization gets "banned" by the White House that makes it unreliable. Actually it's the opposite (with some exceptions). As to the ACP symbol - take it up with reliable sources. Just because you personally disagree with a source does not make it unreliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

None of my concerns were answered regarding the content of the text, its fallacies etc. And a "badge of honor" is not a "true because I like it" fallacy?--Ltbuni (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

* I have been limited by my IPhone from fully participating. I have grave BLP concerns with our relaying the insinuations of the Forward article. Let me first disclose that this is a recurring concern of mine. I spent many edits removing "guilt by association" insinuations from the Margaret Sanger article but there I have the help of several books that assure us she did not share the views of the people with whom she associated. As Gorka is not a historical figure we do not yet have such dispassionate scholarship. This is why we have added imperatives with BLPs.

We need to be mindful of the context of post-Communist societies. Many with shady pasts pop up along the political spectrum whether they bring prejudices or past associations with evil doers. In Russia it is impossible to do major business transactions without dealing directly or indirectly with former Communists such as the ex-KGB guy who heads the country. The ex-Communist nations are struggling with a painful transition.

The Forward article is clearly a one-sided hit job. Notice that they do not mention any factors that might throw doubt on their insinuations, such as Gorka writing for hyper-Zionist organizations like the Gatestone Institute. In this time of mud-slinging partisanship we should hold off covering these insinuations in a BLP. We are not a newspaper let alone a gossip column. We aspire to be an encyclopedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well said. I share these concerns. There may be some way to cover some of the facts reported in the Forward source, but it would be very difficult to do so in a neutral and BLP-compliant manner. I'm skeptical. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, there's actually nothing necessarily contradictory between anti-semitism and (certain types of) pro-Zionism. Indeed, historically, anti-semites and some on the far-right have on occasion supported Zionism because they thought of it as away of getting Jews out of their countries. So the fact that Forward doesn't mention Gatestone - why exactly should they? - doesn't mean anything and is completely beside the point. And calling the source names like "hit job" and "mud-slinging partisanship" is NOT actually an argument, it is... mud-slinging. You can't declare a source unreliable because of "I just don't like it". The Forward is a fine source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"there's actually nothing necessarily contradictory between anti-semitism and (certain types of) pro-Zionism." Yes, it could be true in the 19th and in the first half of the 20th century. Not after the Holocaust.--Ltbuni (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of logical impossibility. Given that the author is wondering about the significance of Gorka's Hungarian associations you'd think an inquiring author would wonder about his Jewish associations. But my more important point is it not hard to imagine that someone has associations with people where one doesn't share every belief. Indeed it is almost unavoidable that one will associate with people with other beliefs. The Forward article is based on insinuations and it is shameful. To include it just because you like it would be poor judgement. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically what you're saying is "I think the author of this reliable source should've written a different article and therefore we shouldn't use it". Welp, it doesn't work like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I’m saying we should be editors not “copy monkeys.” Not every word of every article in every newspaper should be blindly copied. A newspaper or book that is deemed a reliable source is a prerequisite—a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. Editing requires the judicious purposeful selection of material that helps to create an encyclopedia and not just blind or arbitrary extractions because “I like it.” If being a reliable journal or book were sufficient we wouldn’t have the extensive additional criteria for guidance. Consider a few: We find, on the WP:RS page, "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." It is WP:NOTGOSSIP. It is not WP:NOTRUMOUR as "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." And it is certainly WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Deletion without previous talk

We are in the middle of a dispute resolution. Before we reach agreement, I would like to ask everyone, especially Volunteer MArek to refrain from deletion. 1. This article itself states that he was wearing the "Tunic of the Ordr of Vitéz" 2. The HILL is a newspaper etc... So, please re-insert the content.--Ltbuni (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously User:Volunteer Marek can give the best insight into their rationale for removal of content, but just as a reminder, BLPs don't really work like a lot of other articles in the sense of "stick on a {{cn}} and find a source later". Per the relevant policy, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr Marek removed the opinion of Tibor Navracsics, because he thinks the Hill (newspaper) is a blog. Then deleted the bocskai part - WITHOUT deleting the phrase: He was wearing the TUNIC of the Order of Vitéz - now, it gives the impression, that Gorka and the Hungarian expert did not give explanation on this issue. I reinserted it, with explanation, he deleted again. Next one: the sources, provided by other users, covered the activity of Paul Gorka (especially the Hungarianspectrum.com). Removing that "he created prodemocratic organisation " is not fair, because it suggests that he could have created nazi organisations. That is why I created this section. --Ltbuni (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And maybe I am wrong, but I think, that we accepted Gorka's video as the expression of his point of view. So, in this context, it is a reliable source.--Ltbuni (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well...this edit seems to be misguided, since the Hungary Today piece does mention the uniform. However, this edit does seems to be correct. The reference isn't to reporting by The Hill, it is to one of their contributor blogs. TimothyJosephWood 16:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, and how about the video?--Ltbuni (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And why do we accept the Hungarianspectrum.com as source- it is a blog as well, what is more the author -ardent supporter of Ferenc Gyurcsány - is the one, who brought up the whole nazi issue... She was discredited in Hungary-related articles.Mr. Navracsics is still the EU Comissioner.--Ltbuni (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the video is probably fine as long as it's used in accordance with WP:SELFSOURCE. No idea what the reliability of the Hungarian Globe is though. Since VM doesn't seem to have made any edits since the ones here, they may be offline and we can probably wait a little while for them to respond either way. TimothyJosephWood 16:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Hungarian Spectrum and this "nazi scandal": http://ferenckumin.tumblr.com/page/6 It is a blog of a government official, but here is a report from Heti Válasz on the same issue. This whole nazi thing, the Forward and other were brought up by Eva S. Balogh. Totally unreliable with a clear political agenda: http://hungarytoday.hu/news/statement-hungary-today-47573--Ltbuni. And Mrs Éva participated in a CIA Congress, where she decalred that there is no difference between nazis and right-wing politicians. Only in Hungarian in Népszabadság http://nol.hu/kulfold/a_cia_kerdez__iranbol_penzelik_a_jobbikot_-436911 (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree the whole "Nazi scandal" is just a politically motivated bluff. I think there is a huge misunderstanding. 1, Gorka and Gorka's father were never members of the Order of Vitez. (Gorka's father received a "Vitez" badge from Hungarian exiles in 1979) 2, The "Order of Vitez" was a military order created after WW1 and ABOLISHED after WW2. 3, Unfortunately, during WW2, its members became beneficiaries of the Holocaust (e.g. 1942 land reform ---> Jewish lands were given to the members of the Order) but it does not mean that all the awarded members were Nazis. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

What is more, among the Order of Vitéz ther were guys like Nagybaconi Nagy Vilmos who is a Righteous Among the Nations, (footnote 65) and Vitéz Koszorús Ferenc and vitéz Géza Lakatos etc--Ltbuni (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Controversy should be mentioned in the lead

Let's avoid edit-warring and discuss how we should summarize controversy in the lead. There seems to be both critics and defenders. I believe both should be mentioned. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, Snooganssnoogans, I'll start. The first articles to come out were critical of Gorka. Thus, we summarized them as appropriate. Now we have articles "answering" those criticisms and are generally supportive of Gorka. It's appropriate that we summarize both as there is now controversy. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of Miniter's op-ed in Forbes, none of the response pieces say that he isn't a fringe figure in academic and policy-making circles. The pieces mostly cite people saying that they agree with his views and appreciate him, and that they disagree with characterizations of him as an islamophobic or anti-semite. Some of the pieces even concede that his views are fringe. The National Review op-ed (the response pieces are all op-eds, most of them for conservative outlets), for instance, talks about how the "swamp" is attacking Gorka, [12] which is an unkind term for the mainstream, the establishment or policy-making community. Miniter, who does argue that Gorka isn't fringe, dismisses the editor-in-chief of the International Studies Association's flagship journal's critique of Gorka's PhD thesis as "cheap shots"[13]. Miniter is not an academic and his willingness to dismiss Nexon's thorough review of Gorka's thesis as he does in his op-ed with a couple of words does not inspire much confidence. Two experts are cited in the Business Insider as defenders of Gorka, yet the BI reporting talks about Gorka as fringe, presumably because of the significantly greater numbers of academics and wonks that describe him as such.[14] Note also that every single defender of Gorka in any published venue is cited on his Wikipedia page (they are listed - Gorka has been defended by X, Y, Z) whereas the far more numerous critiques are lumped together for the most part. So his page even gives a distorted and favorable view of Gorka as having a greater number of defenders than critics, partly due to the actions of the editors who changed the lede. Note that these critiques include editor-in-chiefs of academic journals, and that reliable sources such as the Washington Post and Business Insider have characterized Gorka as fringe. Even the conservative blogs cited in defense of Gorka talk about how sources that we'd all consider reliable sources of news reporting have attacked Gorka, e.g. this from the Free Beacon: "The media assault came from the upper levels of the mainstream press including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. Other lesser publications such as Politico piled on."[15] An individual can still be fringe in academia and policy-making, and still be defended by a number of people (e.g. Peter Navarro, Andrew Wakefield). Also, one of the sources defending him and listed on this Wikipedia page is just a letter by a congressman. Not that I want these sources in the article but if you want counterweights to the conservative blogs, there are plenty of left-leaning outlets that characterize him as "fringe" (e.g. Vox, Vanity Fair, DailyKos, TPM, MSNBC) but I don't think there'd be much value in adding those sources, just as there is dubious value in adding a bunch of conservative bloggers accusing critics of being part of the "swamp". So in short, we have reliable sources for reporting (WaPo, BI) characterizing him as "fringe", numerous academics characterizing him as fringe and questioning his academic credentials, some of his defenders characterizing him as fringe, several individuals (some of them academics) saying that they agree with his views and appreciating him, and one op-ed by a non-academic explicitly saying that Gorka isn't fringe. Note that the lede only said that he has been "characterized as a fringe figure". The lede did not say "he has been accused of islamophobia and anti-semitism" which would be unwarranted given the large number of sources in the article that dispute that he is an islamophobe or antisemite. That he is fringe is strongly supported by the contents of his Wikipedia article and should therefore be in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be our difference: the controversy over his view on Islam would, I believe, be the more important controversy. The word “fringe” is vague and doesn’t say in what sense and by what measures. What makes him “fringe?” What characteristics, views, or conclusions make him out of the mainstream? You end by expressing the notion that these are of a lessor importance. It leaves the reader wondering. If we used the word “trailblazer” in a BLP but without any idea of the subject matter it would be a useless in conveying the realm in which the person works or his innovations. Fringe is equally worthless. Let’s take the Jaffe article: [16] with the headline “For a Trump adviser, an odyssey from the fringes of Washington to the center of power.” This means nothing more than he wasn’t part of the past regime but now the center of the new regime while those in the center, by implication, have been moved to the fringe. It’s an innocuous description of relative position. Jaffe talks of “radical break” with the past 16 years. Fringe here is not a criticism but a description of regime change. Jaffe also includes criticism further down when he notes this approach could alienate Muslims. The rest of the article is a good comparison of the views of the old regime and Gorka’s and this is worthy of mention in the body of the text (and I believe we have most of it). Yes, “swamp” is an unkind term for the previous regime just as “fringe” is an unkind term for the incoming regime. Neither is encyclopedia worthy.

The word “fringe” is also used with respect to his work in academia. This is interesting but what does this have to do with his position? Daniel Benjamin was a journalist and speech writer for Bill Clinton before assuming a similar counter terrorism position for Clinton. Academic work is not a prerequisite for advisory positions and seldom sought. I have great respect for Benjamin but his credentials were very “thin” prior to his work for Clinton. The IB article’s focus on credentials is relevant for his getting academic tenure but not a government position. Benjamin, however, is in a good position to discuss Gorka given his experience under Clinton. Too bad he hasn’t read Gorka’s book but relies on the Washington Post article. Still, I eagerly introduced Benjamin's criticism. McCarthy (a has prosecuted terrorism cases during the Clinton years and is not a mere blogger) has read Gorka’s book. Most of the critics seem to be responding to sound-bites and hearsay. Their opinion is still worth quoting in the body.

The IB article correctly notes that Gorka isn’t interested in “serious academic” work and Gorka admits it. He is interested in fieldwork and applied work rather than ivory tower pursuits. Fernandez in the IB article notes that most criticism is partisan. Of course, so is most of Gorka’s defenders. Still, his lack of interest in an academic career is a minor point and commentary about his not going down that path doesn’t seem weighty enough for the lead. Since he isn’t seeking an academic career why are we alluding to it in the lead?

Most of the article goes beyond vague words like “fringe” and discusses Gorka’s views in detail and the objections of his critics. Words that describe his ideas, approach, and policy proscriptions will help the reader understand his views and doing the same for his critics will help the reader understand their objections. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

1. See Wikipedia:Wall of text.
2. Of the complete citation overkill in the section of the article that is supposed to support the inclusion of the language in the lead, only two sources seem to actually use the term "fringe". The WaPo article discusses him moving from the fringes of Washington to the center of power, that is fringes, as in the outskirts or periphery of something, not the ideological/political/pseudo-scientific sense of WP:FRINGE. The BI source uses the term a single time, quoting an anonymous source.

So to sum up, we are not going to play this game where we scour the internet to find the nastiest label anyone has ever called this guy, and post it in the lead acting like it's neutral, because it isn't. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding Gorka's association with anti-semitic groups

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 the following text be included in the article?:

In February 2017, the Forward reported that while Gorka was active in Hungarian politics, he had "close ties then to Hungarian far-right circles". The Forward also reported that he "has in the past chosen to work with openly racist and anti-Semitic groups and public figures." The Forward found that "Gorka’s involvement with the far right includes co-founding a political party with former prominent members of Jobbik, a political party with a well-known history of anti-Semitism; repeatedly publishing articles in a newspaper known for its anti-Semitic and racist content; and attending events with some of Hungary’s most notorious extreme-right figures." Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt issued a statement calling on Gorka to "make it clear that he disavows the message and outlook of far-right parties such as Jobbik, which has a long history of stoking anti-Semitism in Hungary.”

The text is sourced to this article by the Forward[17]. Pinging editors who commented on the previous malformed RfC: User:MjolnirPants User:Ltbuni User:Volunteer Marek User:Timothyjosephwood User:Jason from nyc User:Neutrality User:DrFleischman User:Mikalra User:Cullen328 User:Pincrete User:Winkelvi Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude as written. This is weasely and undue. We need to focus exclusively on the specific groups and public figures being referenced, as well as Gorka's associations with them, otherwise this is just shadowy guilt-by-association. And can Jobbik be reliably described as racist? Maybe, but Jobbik doesn't say that. The proposed content reads as if we're hiding behind the source, which is clearly biased, in order to avoid addressing important neutrality issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Jobbik is indisputably racist. Here are three NYT reports that explicitly call Jobbik "anti-Semitic"[18], "openly anti-Semitic"[19] and "deeply anti-Semitic"[20]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Anti-semitic and racist are two different things. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, but "openly racist Jobbik party"[21] and "racist Jobbik party"[22]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. We still have the problem that Gorka is being described as having close ties with some unnamed bigots and bigoted organizations. I acknowledge that the subject matter is worthy of inclusion, since it's been covered in multiple reliable sources, but I don't think we should be including this sort of material without identifying: what political party did he co-found? Which former members of Jobbik did he do it with? Which newspaper did he publish articles in? Which events did he attend, and with whom? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include. This is appropriate weight (three sentences, in the body and not the lead) reflective of a major controversy that is relevant to the biography of a political advisor. To omit this would be to omit a major episode in his life. Greenblatt and the Forward report are mentioned directly in line. I don't think that we need to go into great detail as to the " specific groups and public figures being referenced"—indeed, to do so would require more text which might actually be undue. Neutrality^talk 00:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude. Just no. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Not even close to being a valid argument. If you want your !vote taken seriously you'll have to do better than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. Violates WP:BLP. Gorka is not an anti-semite. This is an attempt to smear him by association and is entirely synthetic. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The previous RfC was not at all malformed, it was exactly what it was intended to be: an evaluation of the sources. I will not !vote in this RfC since my !vote should probably be disregarded by the closing admin anyway. TimothyJosephWood 23:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional include. I think "The Forward found that "Gorka’s involvement with the far right includes co-founding a political party with former prominent members of Jobbik, a political party with a well-known history of anti-Semitism; repeatedly publishing articles in a newspaper known for its anti-Semitic and racist content; and attending events with some of Hungary’s most notorious extreme-right figures", should either go or be very heavily pruned and paraphrased, it simply repeats the "he has known some nasty people" accustion without adding much substantially and is even more tenuous (co-founded with ex-members of organisation with bad reputation etc printed alongside etc). Thus reduced it gets to the core of the controversy, he has known these 'dodgy' people and has now been asked to disassociate himself from their beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Note. Today the Forward announced that Gorka is himself a full member of the Historical Vitézi Rend, citing two leaders of the organization. [23] I'm not going to take part in the discussion over what is included, but I'll note that The Forward is a highly respected and serious newspaper that satisfies WP:RS without a doubt. Zero^talk 12:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include. This is appropriate weight (three sentences, in the body and not the lead) reflective of a major controversy that is relevant to the biography of a political advisor. To omit this would be to omit a major episode in his life. Greenblatt and the Forward report are mentioned directly in line. I don't think that we need to go into great detail as to the " specific groups and public figures being referenced"—indeed, to do so would require more text which might actually be undue. RYPJack (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Exclude, Lili Bayer is a leftist propagandist, she is just unable to make diference between right and radical right. People in Hungary, even leftist journals laugh at her ignorance. Check the latest issue of Magyar Narancs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.225.206.77 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. I have been broadly in favor of this before, but the article now includes the Vitézi Rend controversy including the requests by ADL etc to denounce antisemitism; the rest of this is largely guilt by association coming from a single source (and repeated by others referring back to it). I'm also given pause by User:Ltbunti above ("I read the Hungarian sources she, Lili Bayer," etc), which seem to indicate that she may be misrepresenting even those tangential associations. If we get some firm direct evidence of involvement in antisemitic groups, we should include this along with any such newfound evidence, but as it stands now I think we should leave it out.Mikalra (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude I was summoned by bot to a different but essentially identical RfC, and I just noticed this one. As I indicated above, this kind of contentions claim is prohibited by WP:V only if it was reported by multiple high-quality sources. Editors should not have multiple RfCs simultaneously on essentially the same issue. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include - Summoned by bot. The content should be added but trimmed down to avoid WP:UNDUE. The reliability of Forward can also be discussed here at RSN, a discussion which Snooganssnoogans opened up. Meatsgains (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude as written per DrFleischman above. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Note. Multiple sources, including USA Today [24], are reporting on Gorka's extremist ties today and citing the Forward's reporting. The Anne Frank Center has called for his resignation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Note - this is still breaking. So you guys might wanna hold on to your POVs for the time being.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, interesting development. Let's see what they find as we move beyond rumor to supported fact. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can't we include this while also noting that Gorka and his supporters have challenged these allegations? That seems most neutral.VR _talk 05:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment There is a very large amount of space in this article devoted to his alleged anti-Semitism. I have no opinion on whether that amount of space is justified, but I suggest that restraint be shown and that the allegations be stated in summary style. Right now there is a serious neutrality question that needs to be addressed, as indicated by two tags. Also, when WP:V says "multiple" tags sources, it is not referring to one source cited in multiple sources, as I understand the policy. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Three different ways to cite the same article?

Snooganssnoogans, we have Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon describing Gorka as Islamophobic. A few paragraphs down we have The New York Times describing him as Islamophobic, which cites the same Benjamin and Simon article. Finally, we have Max Boot linking to the Benjamin and Simon article and citing it. Once is enough! Jason from nyc (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that the Foreign Policy article of Max Boot wasn't accessible by the editors since it is behind a subscription wall. I've now read the article and there is nothing there but a hyperlink to the Benjamin and Simon article which we already discuss in detail. Boot isn't providing further analysis but simply deferring to a source we already have. Now that we can go pass the results of a Google search, we should remove this "undue" repetition. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

One, don't assume that your inability to access (and apparently, understand) premier magazines applies to everyone else. Second, nonsense. Boot describes Gorka in that way. That he hyperlinks to the Benjamin and Simon article that fleshes out all the ways that Gorka is an uninformed bigot and crackpot is immaterial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I do have access to Foreign policy but it is clear that others didn't. Boot is merely reporting what Benjamin and Simon conclude. It isn't an additional analysis of Gorka's views on Islam. It is clearly undue and padding. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Can either of you please state the material in question so we can see it for ourselves? I wouldn't normally ask you to do this, because it can be pretty tedious, but clearly you guys disagree on what its actually saying.VR _talk 04:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The one sentence by Boot about Gorka is a passing reference that links to a New York Times article that we use: "Bannon has even created his own shadow NSC, called the Strategic Initiatives Group, staffed by people such as the anti-Muslim extremist Sebastian Gorka." The hyperlink link is intended to be the explanation. We already use the linked source and explain for our readers why the author comes to these conclusions (most articles use Islamophobia for anti-Muslim). Most of Boot's article is an analysis of Gaffney. If he had a similar analysis of Gorka it would have contributed to our explanation of how and why he believes the Times article establishes Gorka as anti-Muslim; but we already do that. An unexplained passing reference doesn't give us any analysis and merely directs us to an article that we use in detail. It becomes mere WP:LABEL, repetative, and extraneous. Let the Benjamin and Simon (B&S) analysis be the focus point. I note in the talk about that B&S would be knowledgable experts; the next day, by coincidence, they published an editorial in the New York Times. Having read their book, this enabled me to understand the analysis of their article and I put that in this BLP and much discussion here in the talk. That should be the shining point of the paragraph. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Page protection requested

This article had page protection due to vandalism, and as soon as it expired there was additional vandalism. I think it would be best left to registered users. MeropeRiddle (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

More from The Forward

A 2007 video this time: [25]. Zero^talk 02:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing "v" in definition

I have removed the "v" (for "von") in the lede definition which has been present since the article start (which may very well have been supplied by Gorka himself or a close associate) as both unsourced and contentious.

This title has been the subject of some speculation on this page as well as extensive comment in both social and main stream media in connection with Gorka's putative membership of a Hungarian political group that awarded his father the honor. The issue it contentious because this group in its original incarnation was certainly antisemitic and complicit in crimes against humanity. Gorka defends his occasional use of the title (for example in his PhD thesis, there are altogether three sources I am aware of that use the title) as honoring his father. However he evidently uses it seldom, and not for example in his most well known best-selling book. I find plausible the argument put forward on this page that a foreign honorific title, if that is what is, should in any case have been renounced as part of his US naturalization.

It is plainly contentious and at present unsourced in the article. As such it should be removed from the lede definition. I'm open to editors here inserting a reference to it in the article, but for reasons of weight it should not be part of the definition, and moreover it begs the question of its bona fide status. 138.199.64.74 (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I need to make a correction. I gather "v" in fact stands for Vitéz and not von. For that reason alone it should be consigned to a note in the body of the text. Someone should also inform Seb, who is on record on this page as affecting "von" on occasion. Perhaps the new SPA so knowledgeable on Seb's publishing history who reverted me can undertake that duty? 138.199.74.238 (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"Sebastian L. v. Gorka"

I think it´s pretty clear that this is not how he is commonly referred to in reliable sources (though some RS have), so users should definitely stop adding "L. v." to the title of the article or the initial bolded part. But what about adding it as an "also known as" or "sometimes referred to" in the parentheses following his name? It is after all how Gorka has often times referred to himself in public (e.g. testimonies, op-eds, dissertation). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you start a new thread here? The issues were set out clearly by me (disclosure) in the thread above.

I think it's pretty clear that retaining the "v" is what Seb would want, but why should we bother about that?

Gorka's most successful academic position is presumably his professorship at the Institute of World Politics, but his profile there doesn't vee him. His best-selling book doesn't vee him. His Breitbart articles don't vee him. His LinkedIn entry doesn't vee him. His Hungarian BLP, presumably best qualified to judge, doesn't vee him. So why should the English Wikipedia?

Seriously, what the eff is all this really about essess?

That Seb (and his Bermondsey based Brit fanbase) wants the world to refer to him with a moniker vaguely suggesting a Greek shipping line is their own affair. We shouldn't pay any attention. At best it's WP:Undue. The place for it is with all that stuff about Vitez which I for one can't be arsed with. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is covered in principle, if not in particular by MOS:CREDENTIAL. In a nutshell, we discuss but do not employ honorific titles in WP's voice. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Timothy. I thought that must be the case, but couldn't find the policy you give. While I'm here, what is the rational for giving his name in Hungarian? Why not Arabic? Seb might find that handy (for the record it's سيباستيان غوركا). I mean I get that dad Gorka was Hungarian, but why nevertheless should we have it in Hungarian? The name Gorka is actually Polish in origin (as in Gorecki). Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is at MOS:FORLANG, and the standard is whether the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language. Since the subject is legally American by citizenship, and apparently British by birth, there may be a good argument to make that it's not appropriate here. However, since he is apparently ethnically Hungarian, educated in Hungary, and served in the Hungarian government, there's also probably a good argument to be had to the contrary. Overall it's pretty debatable. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Again thanks for that. I'm content to let it go. It does look odd to me, but then I don't have shares in L v. Gorka. I will say this in passing, that I spent a few minutes this afternoon looking at all this Vitezi controversy and it does strike me as a teacup drama. Much to much ado about nothing in the article IMHO. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I've been looking at this Vitezi business. While I agree with the article's templater that the affair is given too much weight, I do now agree with Essess initiating this thread that Gorka using the style "v." ought to be mentioned. Not only did he use it in his PhD, but he has also rather curiously used it in Congress testimony. Moreover Seb has uploaded a flattering image of himself to Commons where he graciously vees himself. I think all that should be recorded in the Vitez section consistent with the MOS:CREDENTIAL guideline Timothy mentions. As a matter of interest, can anyone furnish examples of other holders of the order (other than Seb and his Dad) styling with a vee like this? Looking at the Order of Vitéz article the appropriate style would appear to be as in HIRH Archduke vitéz Archduke Josef Arpád of Austria. Is the unadorned vee a Gorka invention (erm... perhaps we could call it "dining off the V" )? Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against it being mentioned, and guidance is pretty clear that it can and should probably be discussed, but that it should not be used. The issue would be different if he had, for example, actually legally changed his name to include the honorific. But it is, at the end of the day, still an honorific, and WP doesn't use them, not matter how prestigious the doctor, or how widely recognized the title. Compare Mehmet Oz, who is not only an actual doctor, but who is widely branded as "Dr. Oz", but for whom WP still uses his actual name of birth.

I get that the subject has been active here, and that's actually pretty common for one of the most visited sites in the world, but what he would personally prefer is fairly irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 14:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I'll edit at the Vitez section accordingly once I get my account confirmed (it's a new account and the article was quite properly locked against some annoying and puerile vandalism). Of course others are free to edit before me or debate otherwise here. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Continuing this elegant excursion into Hungarian veeology funded by Brit tax payers (come on, it's serious stuff), I have now established that vitéz is indeed the recommended style. Thus Seb's dad was laid to rest as vitéz Gorka Pál. However, when it comes to publishing your memoirs it seems you're allowed to punt a vee, if only perhaps to avoid unfortunate misunderstandings among book reading folk who are generally less alpha-maled than (shall we say) so-called "presidents" and the like in their sensibilities regarding chivalric honors. So we'll just have to let vitéz Seb have that I suppose. I'm still dubious, however, though I did manage to find a long list of Seb's musings dining off the V. Yummy. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Just for shits and giggles I checked out Paul McCartney, which is for fuck all's sake an WP:FA, and they actually use "Sir James Paul McCartney" in the lead. I'm pretty sure this is flatly wrong, and I'm surprised to find it in an FA. so there may be a broader discussion to be had here, probably at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, because this seems pretty unambiguously against guidance there. TimothyJosephWood 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"To compare great things with small..." . I'll leave the discussion to you.

I've now had my auto-confirmation and at some time today I'll edit to include mention of Dr V's published history of v-entitlement. I'm genuinely keen to maintain neutrality and it might reassure to make mention here of the three main sources I'll use to cite. The first will be an address by Gorka himself about his father and book and the medal he was awarded. The second will be an existing source [54] sympathetic to Gorka and the third a Haaretz piece evidently not sympathetic to Gorka. I'm including Seb's address partly because it's a good account of Seb's stance against totalitarianism, but also because it remembers his father who deserves to be remembered. I'll take the opportunity to red link Paul Gorka and if I have some spare moments the next few days I'll make a stub for him. I'm surprised Seb didn't take a little time off writing about himself also to offer an article about the father he claims to honor. I shall also add a note to the article detailing Seb's contibutions to it. In this case I think we ought to do that. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• BTW, apparently Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are exceptions to the title thing, per the same policy. TimothyJosephWood 15:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Medgyessy

The material on Medgyessy strikes me as somewhat inconsequential since it only remarks "he [Gorka] attempted to serve as an official expert ..." without offering any explanation of the implication that the attempt was unsuccessful.

In fact the second citation [Balogh] in the article explains he was denied security clearance because it was felt that Gorka was a spy working for British counterintelligence.

Surely that should be included? Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sk-gorka: I have now WP:BOLD edited at the article. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This article has attracted media attention

Mystery Wikipedia User 'Sk-Gorka' Edits Articles About WH Aide Sebastian Gorka.

No further comment. -- llywrch (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This may attract additional (helpful or unhelpful) edits, but probably merits no mention in a biographical article, as there is no reliable confirmation the Wikipedia editor is in fact Gorka, only speculation (however plausible). I have already removed a footnote in the article that infers this, linking solely to the User's edits and uploads (violated WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:CIRCULAR, and WP:OR). Navel-gazing aside, the actions of individual wikipedians are rarely noteworthy. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm famous! I always knew one day I could fulfill my potential and be "editor with a different username". TimothyJosephWood 17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly though, we may have to request semi-protection if this becomes a big story. But as much as some users may get the warm and fuzzies from including stories about Wikipedia on a Wikipedia article, I don't see that this is WP:DUE at this time, and is likely in testy BLP waters.

I will however file a UAA report for a block under WP:REALNAME, because this is exactly the reason we don't allow people to edit under the names of prominent individuals unless they can provide proof that they actually are who they are. It's ripe for an impersonator to make controversial edits that get picked up by the media in exactly this type of situation. TimothyJosephWood 17:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is protected, which I think is a good solution. Andrevan@ 22:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

British Territorial Army claims may be trumped-up

There are reports that his claims of what he did in the British Territorial Army are either not true or unverified. [26] Since there's a lot of discussion on this page I wanted to put it here before editing the article. Thoughts? --AW (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth citing Anna Marlan's Jezebel piece you quote in the "Competence" section. The problem with making more of it is that in fact it's hard to find sources where Gorka indeed does suggest his experience in the TA was to do with counterterrorism. The article did suggest that until recently, but that was not the original edit that merely noted (correctly) he worked in an intelligence unit, and the editor responsible for the counterterrorism claim doesn't appear to be any of the Conflict of Interest editors noted in the Template heading the Talk page.

At the same time it might be worth clarifying just what TA service entails - it amounts to a weekend a month and a fortnight's camp a year. That Gorka could have been involved in any of the investigations he appears to have suggested he was is frankly absurd.

As for what he actually did, that's already covered in the citations offered in the article. Probing for more is unlikely to be successful and without sources that may be cited must amount to Original Research. 178.208.171.73 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've cited Anna's piece in a couple of places, but I can't see that "Competence" was an appropriate section, or at least without making a necessarily contentious edit I'm not prepared to provide. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Paul Gorka

I mentioned above that I had red-linked Paul Gorka (Seb's dad) and time permitting would provide a stub. Paul is notable in his own right and verifiable in multiple sources. He is the author of a well-received memoir describing his opposition as a student to the Soviet occupation of Hungary.

Paul claimed that he was betrayed by Kim Philby and this is a view that has been promoted uncritically by Seb, but that claim has always been regarded as dubious by the UK intel community (for which I can provide a reliable source). It's worth mentioning I think that the user Sk-gorka referenced in the media attention template that heads this page uncritically repeated the claim in their edits, a claim that has since deleted. In my stub I shall address the issue in accordance with Wikipedia's fact-checking mission confirmed by Katherine Maher. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Paul is notable. But yeah, the Philby claim is ridiculous and just shows how credible these stories are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not ridiculous. He was not betrayed personally by him, but Philby gave info to the commies concerning opposition groups working in East-European countries - Gorka's network was unveiled this way. BTW, latest research in Hungary showed that it is possible that Mr. Philby had very good connections with the Hungarian Secret Service - his wife, Litzi Friedmann was the lover of Gábor Péter, a high ranked Hungarian official.--Ltbuni (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I know, I know, it is just a letter: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/30/opinion/l-philby-s-recruitment-213588.html --Ltbuni (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Litzi Friedman was recruited in Vienna by Gábor Péter. Philby was there too. "Her recruiter was a Hungarian, Gabor Peter, a refugee from the dictatorship of the Hungarian fascist leader Admiral Horthy. Physically, he was a most unattractive man: he limped, he had a slight hunchback and a thin, ugly face. But he had a powerful personality and was absolutely dedicated to the Party. Friedmann described him as "a real Stalinist, a tough, ruthless and professional operator. Philby's original assignment was to work as a courier, using his British passport and posing as a freelance journalist, to maintain links between the outlawed Austrian communists and sympathizers in Hungary, Prague and Paris" Phillip Knightley, Philby: KGB Masterspy (1988) pages 40- 41 Online: http://spartacus-educational.com/Litzi_Friedmann.htm --Ltbuni (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't actually prove anything. Seriously, Philby had much better things to do at this time than worry about a couple small fry Hungarian dissenters (to be precise, Paul Gorka worked for the communists and only claimed to have been doing "pro-democracy" work secretly, he could've simply been a victim of one of the many intra-party purges that occurred in these regimes with a high regularity). Philby's focus post-WW2, or at least post 1948 was covering the asses of other Soviet agents, making sure the guys who actually collected the info didn't get caught. And his area of work during this time was first Turkey, then US, not Eastern Europe. And since he was a very valuable asset there's pretty much no way he would've risked exposure by conveying intelligence about a couple guys writing useless reports that the Hungarian secret services most likely kept a close eye on anyway (since they worked for the communist authorities). Anyway, this isn't really the place to hash it out. Let's stick to sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

1."Paul Gorka was working for the communists? Possible victim of intra-party purges?" :::Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow!Sounds libellous. Source? He was 18 years old when he was arrested in 1950, a bit too young to be a "victim of intra-party" machination... After the war,the Soviets prepared for the third world war, and they used the East-European countries as a buffer zone against the NATO - it was essential for them to know every opposition group - anyway they were attacked from this direction at least two times in the XXth century. So it was not a C-class region in that times - it was worth risking Philby's cover. Given this, and thefact, that Mr. Philby was familiar with the region, had ties with the Hungarian communist party, it is not unbelievable to say that he knew something about covert Western operations anywhere in the Eastern Block - and gave them up. Not the average guy on the field, but the contact people, who organised opposition activities in all of the Eastern Bloc countries, not only in Hungary.

2. "And his area of work during this time was first Turkey, then US, not Eastern Europe." Actually Mr. Philby was responsible for the failure of a coup d'état in Albania in 1948... Albania is in Eastern Europe... Albanian Subversion or https://books.google.hu/books?id=tFJLIIGVk10C&pg=PA5&dq=Kim+Philby+Albania,+1948&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin0b_x-6vTAhXEOhQKHZW3ATgQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=Kim%20Philby%20Albania%2C%201948&f=false or see: https://books.google.hu/books?id=32H4AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&dq=Kim+Philby+Albania,+1948&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin0b_x-6vTAhXEOhQKHZW3ATgQ6AEIQDAE#v=onepage&q=Kim%20Philby%20Albania%2C%201948&f=false --Ltbuni (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If there's conflict over a redlink, it seems the easiest thing to do would be to make the article, and that pretty much settles the issue right there. TimothyJosephWood 18:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No conflict noted by me here, but since you raise it, the point surely is that a redlink offers other editors the opportunity to make a start and, right, feel free to make that start. Even a stub is a significant commitment of time, hunting down categories and sources to keep ther deletionists (may they rot in internet hell) at bay. I might have time over the weekend. If I never do have the time, then at least I know that when a start is ever made it will be automatically linked in the article.

As for the "controversy" there shouldn't have been one.The nooby editor who first deleted was simply wrong to do it (as was implied by their somewhat fatuous edit summery). His supporter should have known better. As that editor contributes here he should have known that I had discussed Paul Gorka and my intention to redlink, and extended me due courtesy. For the record, I'm not Seb. He can't have been paying attention very closely. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please cool it with the veiled personal attacks, as it's very clear who you're talking about. Even setting aside WP:SPA issues, calling another editor with an older account a "nooby" is especially odd. When someone challenges a link to an article of unestablished notability, the solution is to write the article, as Timothyjosephwood said. If you are not willing or able to cobble together a stub, then you're asking someone else to do your work for you. That only gets you so far. There is nothing inherently wrong with removing a redlink, and redlinks are inefficient at prompting new articles, anyway. WP:REDYES explains that such links come with the expectation that the target meets notability guidelines, and the burden is on you to establish this through reliable sources. Simply stating that such sources exist isn't necessarily enough, you need to provide some way to verify them. Hellbound or not, deletionists have just as much a say in WP:CONSENSUS as you do. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to be able to provide a stub of any significance over Easter. Here's some sources for those who might like to have a go (Tim? aspiring wikilawyers even?) Paul Gorka's book (which I can't lay hands on) is cited in the article along with Seb's talk about it. Here are links:

Paul Gorka book

Hungarian version

Seb's talk

There are scattered references to Paul Gorka in the literature about the Hungarian diaspora. Here is a reference in a 1996 Indie article:

MI6 trained rebels to fight Soviets in Hungarian revolt

That Kim Philby betrayed Gorka is discussed in a number of sources. This source I mentioned questions the story. A useful stub template would be {{Hungary-bio-stub}} Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Don't try to justify it. Just write the damned thing when you have time. TimothyJosephWood 23:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have access to Paul Gorka's book in English. I do not intend to read it, but if anyone needs anything, I can look it up.--Ltbuni (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Reynolds' opinion piece given undue weight

Andrew Reynolds's opinion piece has been given undue weight in the Controversy/Credentials subsection of the article. Particularly in a controversy over academic credentials we should not be relying on opinion pieces for facts. This isn't supposed to be a an anti-Gorka polemic. Motsebboh (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The facts asserted in the Reynold’s piece are readily verifiable, Haaretz is a reliable source, and much of the use we make of the article is to serve as a source for the opinions of Prof. Reynolds and of the authorities he cites. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The piece is clearly labelled as opinion. It's okay to use such a source to concisely state Reynolds's view of Gorka's credentials. It's not okay to use it as the main source of facts in the section. Motsebboh (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It’s fine, as well, to use the piece for opinions reported therein, and other easily-checked facts. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". In this case, the author is well qualified to substantiate the matters of fact offered in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Reynolds is no expert on Hungarian academic practices. His comment that Gorka might not have gotten away with the same kind of PHD reviewing panel in the USA is probably relevant, and that's about it. Are we also supposed to accept as fact that Gorka is a "mustache-twirling villain . . with the mannerisms of a pompous B-movie baddy . . . "? This is obviously a hit piece with limited use as a encyclopedic source. Motsebboh (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you are trying to whitewash and protect the reputation of someone for whom you have a political affinity. Get off the WP:SOAPBOX. Gorka's story is largely about how he is seen as a fraud and a charlatan. Andrevan@ 20:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you are trying to preserve a hit piece by ignoring Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Motsebboh (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been an admin here for 10 years. I know whitewashing when I see it. The article isn't polemical and these are not hit pieces, the simple facts are that Gorka has a shady background and multiple sources have reported on it. Andrevan@ 21:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You've been an administrator here for ten years. Good God!!! How'd you get in? Motsebboh (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Resorting to personal attacks also "ignores Wikipedia's rules and guidelines." Your comment also violates WP:CIVIL. Or do you only observe the rules you like, when/if they suit you? Or when your arguments fail and personal attacks are all you have left? Are you also aware you could be blocked for that comment? You need to formulate an expedient and genuine-sounding apology - or you just may find yourself reported. There are also "Wikipedia's rules and guidelines" regarding WP:CONSENSUS. You should review them and take them heart. Just as you should also review WP:COI, specifically, WP:DISCLOSE, WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE, as well as WP:ACTUALCOI. Do you have anything to disclose? What is your relationship to this subject? This subject has also famously contributed here.[27][28][29] Given the relative newness of your account; and the kinds of topics you work on: should we also be launching a sockpuppet investigation? X4n6 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

An editor/administrator who thinks that any of my edits amounted to "trying to whitewash" the article, or that anything that I've said at this Talk page is WP:Soapbox doesn't understand those concepts. Notice Andrevan's failure to specify points of criticism; just the generalized "don't whitewash" "don't protect him" "I know whitewashing when I see it" "get off your soapbox". That's basically I don't like you, which is personal. As for your questions, X4n6, the only thing I knew about Sebastian Gorka was from seeing him a few times on the Fox News channel and thinking that he had probably just walked off the set of The Prisoner of Zenda. Motsebboh (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Was the admin the only person who disagreed with you, Motsebboh? Hardly. It appears you were rebuffed by another user, who pointed out that several reliable sources said the same things as the source you objected to - and your response was, verbatim, "it doesn't matter." Then another user even responded by quoting the relevant policy - again to prove you were wrong. Your response there? "Nope." Only then did the admin step in, also to point out that consensus did not tilt your way and suggested you may be pov pushing. Your response then? An unwarranted personal attack. Even now, you're still ignoring your own actions by attempting to deflect to those of others. Contrary to what you may believe, people aren't dumb around here, ok? Enough. You need to take responsibility for your own actions and your own behavior here. So in your view, everyone here is wrong but you? Deal. You have now had FOUR editors disagree with you and yet you persist. And you finger point. You seem to suffer from WP:LISTEN and you still don't seem to get WP:CONSENSUS. So you saw Gorka on Fox "a few times" and came here to defend him? Umm... I'll just say that, yeah, that's pov pushing and it's disruptive and it needs to stop, or you could be reported. Not because of a difference of opinion, but because of the disruptive and uncivil way you've handled yourself; your inability to accept CONSENSUS; and your refusal to just WP:LETITGO. X4n6 (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Let it go? The same day I make my original comment a discussion "consensus" has fully formed? Doesn't sound as if there were a lot of deliberation here. The only thing I'm defending Gorka from is poor editing in his Wikipedia article. Nomoskedasticity brings up this quote from WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". Yes, Reynolds' OPINION piece may be considered more reliable more reliable and "reflect a [more] significant viewpoint" than some letter writer published in Haaretz. That's why we are free to use it as opinion in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we should be using it as the main source of factual information about Gorka's credentials, and particularly not given its highly polemical style. Motsebboh (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC) PS: Regarding my comment to Andrevan: "You've been an administrator here for ten years. Good God!!! How'd you get in?" No, I shouldn't have said it. Instead I should have asked him to produce an edit that I had made to the article that "whitewashed" the subject or a comment on the Talk page that was "soapboxing". Motsebboh (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, enough. You're a sockpuppet of an indef banned user: [30] [31]. If you want to come back to Wikipedia editing I suggest you start with non-controversial articles. See also WP:OFFER.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Google is not a research tool.

We've discussed this before. Merely going a Google search for sources who use a word like "fringe" isn't research. The sources use it in different senses. Some use it to question the reception of Gorka's work by peers. Others use it to refer to the fact that he was not part of the Washington establishment but is now at its center. User:Timothyjosephwood eloquently pointed out that the usage is different than in our WP:FRINGE usage. We've discussed this before. We actually have to read the source before citing them. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Academic timeline doesn't make sense

"Even Gorka’s attendance poses a mystery. When exactly was he a graduate student at the university? Did he take classes? Did he receive any training in Islam or Islamic studies? His CV notes that he left Hungary in 2004 to work for the US Defense Department in Germany and then in 2008 relocated to the US. There is no evidence that he ever returned to live and study in Budapest." :http://reynolds.web.unc.edu/gorka/

“Professor”

Gorka’s claim to the title of “Professor” rests either on (a) whether the title is appropriate to administrative positions in military training institutions, or (b) whether the title is appropriate to a former adjunct at Georgetown. The latter is plausible, but if admitted it would accord the title to all who accept an adjunct position, and arguably to every graduate student who has accepted a teaching assistantship. The Kokkalis fellowship is a student summer grant, and clearly doesn't fit here. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Support for Right Wing Militia

The Forward writes that, in a 2007 video, Gorka declared his support for the Magyar Garda. The Forward is a reliable source. Another editor questions whether the Forward’s reporting is correct, but that’s irrelevant until we have reliable sources correcting The Forward. The passage reads:

In a 2007 video, Gorka declared his support for the Magyar Gárda (Hungarian Guard), a paramilitary group widely described as neo-fascist. The Guard was later banned by the European Court of Human Rights as a threat to racial minorities.. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The guard was formed in 2007, August. Gorka left Hungary in 2008. The guard turned to radical right later. It was banned in 2009--Ltbuni (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Far right militia or what

The Forward is simply lying. The Hungarian version of the record actually says the opposite. It was revealed by Hungarian historians, one of them is some editor in chief of the Jewish weekly, Sabbath. The other one haas its own wikipage: Krisztián Ungváry Previously we accepted the Breitbart on the basis of "it is the content, that matters". Pls see above. Gorka said something - it was published in Breitbart - so we accepted it as a source. If the experts of Hungarian history chose the breitbart.com to express their opinion,as a signal to the Forward, that it is enough, we must not qualify it as "unreliable" etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The other sources were simply the echoes of the Forward: no names, no organisations, etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

We certainly should not take Breitbart over the Forward. We can report that there was some controversy and it was covered differently in different sources - Breitbart, a far-right wing propaganda outlet, and the Forward, a Jewish newspaper, have different viewpoints. Our goal is to balance the different sources and report all POVs in proportion to their prominence in the sources, not to cherry-pick or to decide who is right. "The Forward is lying" is not valid. Andrevan@ 20:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional references for Gorka’s involvement with the Magyar Garda:

• DailyBeast http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/04/03/sebastian-gorka-supported-anti-semitic-hungarian-militia?via=desktop&source=copyurl
• NY Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-staffer-sebastian-gorka-endorsed-disbanded-hungarian-militia-article-1.3018302
• USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/02/democrats-call-trump-fire-aide-sebastian-gorka/101202260/
• Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/04/24/the-least-surprising-statistic/

Though most of the reporting depends on The Forward story, it is accepted by many top news organizations and by the statements of numerous Congressmen. The purported refutation in Breitbart is not. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems pretty clear. Any argument about this would be weighing a known far-right wing source much stronger than its prominence merits. Andrevan@ 21:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Questions

1.You are debating whether the Breitbart is reliable or not. And You do NOT care about that two leading historians falsified every single piece of its argumentation,just because "democratic senators and journalists fell for it?"

2. Why my citations from the historians were deleted? Does it make them unreliable, that they published it in the Breitbart? Now You describe this man as a cryptonazi... Seriously... Ridiculous...

Hungarian sources, how stupid the Forward is:

Historical misunderstanding about Gorka: Magyar Hirlap http://magyarhirlap.hu/cikk/83463/Tortenelmi_felreertesek_Trump_tanacsadoja_korul

They punish Trump with the Order of Vitéz: Magyar Idők http://magyaridok.hu/velemeny/vitezi-renddel-utik-donald-trumpot-1502038/ It is the very same author who published in the Breitbart. So if You don't like the Breitbart reference, then You can use these. Magyar Idők, Magyar Hírlap are Hungarian daily newspapers.

3. What kind of far right groups did he have ties with. Name three, please...

4. Connection with far right militia or what... You totally omitted that small fact, that the Hungarian Guard was not ment to be a radical group - it became one, after Gorka left the country. Missing this, the reader can get false impressions. BTW militia is defined as fighting unit or what - it did not have weapon, they did not fight etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

5. OMG. I just watched the video in the Forward article about his support of the Hungarian Guard. It is totally out of context!!!! In 2007, In Hungary, there was a political crisis due to the lies of the prime minister, riots etc. The state itself was on the verge of dissolution, police officers shot at innocent people with tear gas/ rubber bullets; former secret service members killed Romani to give the false impression of an impending fascist coup d'état. Previously the prime minister donated the military equipment of the Hungarian Army to Iraq, claiming that the new military strategy must be based on rapid interventions in crisis areas, and we should drop the old territorial defence. For this debate, please see: Civil-military relations in Post Communist Europe, page 28. Online here Mr. Gorka was cited here (!) as one who refused this idea, and he argued in this interview in the Forward, that Hungary needs something like the US. National Guard. The Forward-video is not underpinning the statement of the article itself! Their first video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mNCGxV2mAY was a cut one!!! Half sentences etc. And the longer one is about the military needs of Hungary! --Ltbuni (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

6. Here is the English transcript of the interview - linked in the Forward article - revealing his motivation, it is on the redstate.com:http://www.redstate.com/diary/David_Reaboi/2017/04/04/hit-piece-trump-counter-terror-official-starts/--Ltbuni (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No one here is debating whether Breitbart is a reliable source. This has been discussed by the community at the appropriate place, and it is not. Wikipedia does not publish original research, or material found only in inappropriate sources. Similarly, your personal impressions of the intentions of the founders of the Magyar Garda are interesting but not relevant to writing a Wikipedia article. Nor are your personal observations about the videos pertinent; we cover what reliable sources have reported. RedState, a partisan web sit, is also not a reliable source. If your research shows that The Forward was mistaken, I am confident that the editor of The Forward would be interested in hearing from you. So would editors at the Washington Post, NY Times, and many other reliable sources. After you have published there, Wikipedia will be able to use the results of your conjecture; not before. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark, I haven't kept up with the discussion abut Breitbart, it would be great if you could link me to the bottom line on that. If it's settled policy I think any user who is adding Breitbart back to the article should be strongly warned of their disruptive disregard for policy. Andrevan@ 23:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Background Sourcing

An editor has proposed Wikipedia omit all information supplied on background to newspapers and other media ("anonymous sources") in order to suppress a widely reported, paraphrased quotation that might embarrass the subject. This would be, in my view, a drastic policy change for Wikipedia -- one which the extreme right wing in American politics has been calling for in recent months, but also one which would further discredit the project’s already disastrous reputation. I doubt that this is the ideal place to enact such a drastic policy change. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The editor in question is Kyohyi, who has been edit warring here, here and here. His edit summaries claim the disputed entry is

"a blatant BLPGOSSIP Violation" because "...an anonymous opinion is by no means reliable nor neutral nor relevant to a disinterested article on the subject... The source is anonymous and the content is non-encyclopedic gossip".

What was actually reported were plain factual matters, not opinions. What Gorka actually does at the White House is highly relevant. The source has been vetted as reliable by The Washington Examiner. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't publish sensationalism and gossip, we're an encyclopedia. From WP: BLP policy "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives;". We don't publish just anybody's quote or position even if they are reported in newspapers. And since the source is anonymous we can't determine if it's coming from someone with any form of valid insight as to what his job duties are. The source could be a janitor for all we know. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not "just anybody's quote". The unreliability of the source is not established by you making up fantasies about someone you don't know. The reliability of the source has been established by The Washington Examiner, who know who the source is and don't have to make up fantasies. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So who's quote is it? Wikipedia's policies aren't "we copy whatever the Washington Examiner prints", we're not a newspaper, and gossip, while acceptable to newspapers, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. So who said this is important to us. If we can't discern the importance of the person, why do we care about what they say? --Kyohyi (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The source is not just anyone. It is someone The Washington Examiner has established as being reliable. In turn, The Washington Examiner is an organisation with a long term track record of being competent to establish which of its sources are reliable. People have many reasons for needing to be masked from scrutiny, notably in systems tending to totalitarianism. Your draconic approach of wanting to discount all information from publically masked sources would deprive societies of much of the most important information available to them, and would leave democracies very vulnerable. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not discounting information, I'm saying we don't get to quote anonymous people. Particularly not sensationalistic style quotes as the one we're dealing with. The Washington examiner is a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia, they get to be sensational and emphasize their POV, we have to be NPOV and just document what they report. Your misrepresentation of my argument, personalization of this dispute, and talk of totalitarianism sounds of POV pushing, and righting great wrongs. If you really want to further this, I suggest taking it to BLPN to get a wider range of views. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Let us put this flurry of confused accusation and tacit wikilawyering to one side and return undistracted to the main point. The issue – you say this yourself – is whether we get to "quote anonymous people". In particular, should Wikipedia discount all information from publically masked sources? Whether the information is "sensational" is a separate side issue. It might not be appropriate to include the particular bit about Gorka urinating. But that is irrelevant to the wider issue of whether it can be appropriate to cite information which originates from an anonymous source. Wikipedia has always done that, and if you want to change that it is up to you to take the issue to a wider forum. Below, MarkBernstein has asked pertinent questions that follow from your position. You are avoiding answering them also. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You should look at what I removed, and what I left in. The entirety of the Washington examiner source comes from anonymous people. If I had the position of discounting all information from publically masked sources I would have removed the entire section. I didn't, I removed the individuals position that was being emphasized. We can paraphrase the concepts and information that the Washington examiner puts forth because the Washington examiner is a reliable source, but we need to have our own independent (blp compliant) reasoning on why we emphasize a particular person. However, in this case we can't do so because they are anonymous to us. It isn't that we don't discount them, it's that we don't emphasize their specifics. Do you see the difference? And regarding MarkBernstein's comments, if enforcing BLP is a radical change to Wikipedia, then ARBCOM should be notified so they can drop discretionary sanctions on the area. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always permitted authoritative background sources in biographies of living persons. This sudden campaign against them is interesting in its timing, since it coincides (or, actually, follows hard on the heels of) an initiative by the Trump White House seeking to discredit all background sources of information critical of the president. That effort, famously, was complicated when the White House itself wished to distribute material on background. Background sources are widely used and entirely reliable, which is to say that they are exactly as reliable as on-the-record quotes. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia have omitted any coverage of the Washington Post’s reporting on Watergate, since it was based on an anonymous source? Shall we also delete every White House statement issued on background? As I said, this would be a very radical change to Wikipedia, requiring immediate changes to thousands of biographies -- many of which are under discretionary sanctions. And all those changes could be made under BLPEXCEPT. Let a thousand edit wars bloom? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Appearance on CNN

Would like to include a transcript of his July 11, 2017 interview with CNN's New Day (TV series) with Alisyn Camerota in which he addresses Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russian lawyer and President Trump's meeting at G20 with Putin.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:American male writers?

Should subject be included in this list? Thoughts? X4n6 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2017

Add external citation to : http://www.newsweek.com/gorka-islamic-extremism-terrorism-right-wing-extremists-648754 (verify with these Other reliable sources)

      http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-remains-silent-following-minnesota-mosque-bombing 

      http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/trump-official-gorka-derided-mosque-attack-claim-170809071507801.html

Sebastian Gorka said there was a series of “fake hate crimes” in recent months, and suggested the White House won't say anything about a bomb attack on a mosque until they know who did it.

“We’ve had a series of crimes committed, alleged hate crimes, by right-wing individuals in the last six months that turned out to actually have been propagated by the left,” he said. “So let’s wait and see and allow local authorities to provide their assessment. And then the White House will make its comments.” CharlesPrice1964 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. More specifically, where should this citation go? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted BLP of wife, Katharine Gorka

The deletion of the article is being contested. This was the body of the article at time of deletion with full citations. Sources can be found on my talk page. As a result of the article deletion, I entered the content under Sebastian's Personal section and it was deleted promptly with the deleting editor stating that this was a page about him and not his wife. See revision history. Body of BLP of Katharina Gorka deleted article;

copy-paste of twice-deleted article collapsed

Katharine Fairfax (Cornell) Gorka is the wife of Sebastian Gorka and a former member of President Donald Trump's transition team.[1] Her parents, M Keen Cornell and Mortimer Ryon lived in Pennsylvania.[2] After graduating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,[2] she earned a Master's Degree from the London School of Economics in the early 1990s before meeting Sebastian in Romania in 1994.[3] They married in Hungary's St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church in Sopron in 1996. At the time, she was the regional director of the National Forum Foundation.[2] In 2003, she and her husband founded the Institute for Transitional Democracy and International Security in Budapest, Hungary.[4][5] In 2009, she was the executive director of The Westminster Institute, a think tank that focused on threats from extremism and radical ideologies.[6] In March 2016, she became the foreign policy advisor to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz.[5] On November 29, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump chose Gorka to be part of his "landing team" tasked with meeting President Barack Obama's officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),[7] an agency she had publically criticized in the past through articles on Breitbart News and other outlets.[8] During this period, she told DHS officials in charge of the Countering Violent Extremism Task Force (CVE) that it would likely be renamed "Countering Radical Islam" or "Countering Violent Jihad".[9] She became a policy advisor at DHS on April 7, 2017.[3][10] Because of Gorka's openness about her anti-Islam views, her role in the administration has been controversial.[1] Along with President Donald Trump aides, she worked to eliminate a CEV grant to Life After Hate, a group that opposes white supremacy. When the list of new CEV grant recipients was released June 23, 2017, Life After Hate was not included. This decision drew significant attention when a 20 year-old white supremacist attacked a group protesting the Unite the Right rally less than two months later, killing one.[1] She is the author of Cornell Iron Works: The History of an Enduring Family Business and co-edited Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamismwith Patrick Sookhdeo.[11][12]

I find it unfathomable that these factual details, or at least some, would not be a part of an encyclopedic wikipedia and arouses my suspicion of forces at play.

--Wikipietime (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:AGF and a few other policies like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TE may apply here. Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please elevate or act accordingly. No problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Wikipietime (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

More stuff on Katharine

For additional reference, this is a recap of deleted article;

https://wiki2.org/en/Katharine_Gorka

that features an interesting interview with Ms. Gorka.

--Wikipietime (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Also two of her works should be attributed to her;

She is the author of Cornell Iron Works: The History of an Enduring Family Business and co-edited Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism with Patrick Sookhdeo.

Would someone make the addition? I am staying out of the article.--Wikipietime (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC) She is the author of Cornell Iron Works: The History of an Enduring Family Business and co-edited Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism with Patrick Sookhdeo.

Op-ed pieces by Democrats

This garbage is now considered a reliable source? Is that what Wikipedia has sunk to? Thismightbezach (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What precisely is an op-ed by a Democrat? And when don't we use attribution (per guidelines) for the op-eds that we use in this article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Democrat" == non-loyalist, anyone making even vaguely uncomfortable observations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Democrat" == registered Democrats. Your bias is showing. Thismightbezach (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wife Katharine Gorka created and speedily deleted for 2nd time

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/katharine-gorka-life-after-hate_us_59921356e4b09096429943b6

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-national-security-gorka-234950

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/sebastian-gorka-the-west-wings-phony-foreign-policy-guru-w496912

Note to deleting editors; your more than welcome to engage on discussion on my talk page. Bullying has no place in civil society. --Wikipietime (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think calling the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Gorka or the deleting admins "bullies" helps your case and WP:NPA certainly applies. Toddst1 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Katharine Gorka role in alt-right

Research complete, article for wikipedia forthcoming. The creation of this article will be clocked for record speedy deletion tagging. On your marks!--Wikipietime (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Westminster Institute

Needs external Link reference since it was jointly established.

http://www.westminster-institute.org/videos/

--Wikipietime (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

thegorkabriefing.com archived website

a lot of interesting a relevant facts are obtainable at;

https://web.archive.org/web/20150403013900/http://thegorkabriefing.com

at least a link or mention to the site seems appropriate.

“All those who have brought death to our shores as al Qaeda operatives have done so not out of purely political conviction but clearly as a result of the fact that they feel transcendentally justified, that they see their violent deeds as sanctioned by God. If we wish to combat the ideology that drives these murderers, we ignore the role of religion at our peril.” —Dr. Sebastian Gorka’s Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee

--Wikipietime (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

New subsection to Controversies needed: Views on white supremacists

There's already enough out there to go on, but after his views as reported here...https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-adviser-says-people-should-stop-criticizing-white-supremacists-so-much-ddd587767d60/amp/ ...and that article was published just 2 days before the events in Charlottesville, we'd be failing if we didn't have a lot about his views on white supremacists. Boscaswell talk 09:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

ThinkProgress is not a reliable source. Thismightbezach (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

but this is: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/sebastian-gorka-charlottesville-white-supremacists-not-problem-white-house-adviser-breitbart-news-a7893156.html

phew! I'm worn out. It took me 30 seconds to find that! Boscaswell talk 08:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

the article I originally linked has several links to what are usually considered to be reliable sources and in any case, his quotes as quoted in it can be found reported in various sources that are considered to be reliable. Boscaswell talk 08:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hungarian Guard

Gorka said he supported an armed militia in response to the police beating protestors during the 2006 protests in Hungary. I'm now being attacked for posting his remarks in full context. Wikipedia bias. Thismightbezach (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I had the same problem before. Here is the WHOLE interview in Hungarian from his personal blog: http://www.kossuthter.net/node/241 and the abbreviated transcript of it: http://www.kossuthter.net/node/271 - also from his personal blog. The WHOLE text, and not the CUT version of the Forward, is only stressing the importance of a citizen militia, which could defend the country in case of an anarchy, which occured after the lie speech.

Gorka defended the militia during the 11-minute interview, citing “a big societal need” for paramilitary groups in Hungary because the country’s military “is sick, and totally reflects the state of Hungarian society... This country cannot defend itself.” Gorka, then the leader of Hungary’s UDK party, appeared above the chyron “UDK Supports the Hungarian Guard.” The UDK party also made similar statements in defense of the Hungarian Guard. “We support the establishment of the Hungarian Guard despite the personalities involved,” the party said in 2007 in response to allegations of violence and racial bias in the militia. Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/sebastian-gorka-supported-anti-semitic-hungarian-militia As I have already wrote above, there was a huge debate in the Hungarian military, concerning the military reform. Should we focus on the territorial defense, given the fact that there was and is some civil war in the neighbouring former Yugoslavia, or should we focus on peecekeeping, rapid reaction forces.This was the main subject/mania of Gorka in Hungary: http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1995/9506-6.htm It was in this context that Mr. Gorka annonced his support. The Forward neglected the cultural and political background...

Mr Gorka left Hungary somewhere around in 2007. The Garda was banned some two years later. It is libel to accuse him of antisemitism, based on a purposedly cut video by the Forward (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mNCGxV2mAY) Please, note that the original interview is 11 minutes long, while the Forward's version is only 2 minutes... And as a Hungarian, it is funny listening to the lame efforts to cut sentences into half, "rape" the rules of Hungarian grammar, just to prove the point of the Forward. Worst fake news ever... For more:I http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-Forward-is-dead-wrong-Sebastian-Gorka-is-a-defender-of-Israel-and-Jews-484471 --Ltbuni (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

His own words, his own opinion concerning the Hungarian Guard MUST BE in the article - otherwise it would be POV pushing (he is a nazi). And now smearing his mother, by deleting sourced contents - actually more accurate, than some blurred reference on the nbc homepage, without proof, etc - is really too much... Typical example of Argumentum ad Hitlerum and Guilty by association fallacy: not only wears a jacket of nazis, supports nazis, but even his mother was an interpreter of someone on a totally unrelated topic (the 56 uprising in Hungary), who 2 decades later (!) became a Holocaust denier.--Ltbuni (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

We go by reliable secondary sources, not your own idiosyncratic interpretation of a primary source. Also, statements like " It is libel to accuse him of..." may violate WP:LEGAL and very quickly get you banned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)