Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Conspiracy theories

The conspiracy theory stuff in the lead is an opinion and source is not adequate to present it as a fact. Bear in mind that BLP applies. TFD (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes sir. But also spade-is-a-spade. RS say it. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to an article in the "political animal" blog in Washington Monthly ("Conspiracy Theories on the Left"), written by Nancy LeTourneau. Previously it was written by Kevin Drum. It fails as rs because it is a an opinion expressed in an opinion piece, not a fact reported in a news article.

You know that whether or not something is true is irrelevant if the source is not reliable.

TFD (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Amazing. One single, obscure opinion piece is enough to state flat-out in the lead that this group peddle conspiracy theories. Multiple sources from mainstream media directly saying the same about Louise Mensch? Hours of fighting against even referring to the accusations on her page. One might almost think SPECIFICO is judging each of these cases by different standards for some reason. And no, of course this does not go in the lead as a statement of fact. Beyond that, it's debatable whether one opinion piece needs to be mentioned and cited at all, even if properly attributed. N-HH talk/edits 16:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

More importantly, SPECIFICO's source does not say anything even remotely resembling her summary that "[VIPS] has issued several false warnings and repeated conspiracy theories." If "RS say it," why did SPECIFICO have to resort to outright misrepresentation?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO has since clarified that that source (originally added by Volunteer Marek, not her) is irrelevant, and that she preferred to keep "[VIPS] has issued several false warnings and repeated conspiracy theories" unsourced in the lead because it is consistent with the body; it remains the case, however, that no one source supports that formulation. That said, to be more precise, SPECIFICO (and it seems Volunteer Marek) is guilty of WP:SYNTH, rather than "outright misrepresentation."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Could you please explain why you are using edit summaries like this to revert content? It seems that you have opened case after case at the SPI on the suspicion of socking, nearly all of which have been declined. The fact that an IP lives somewhere in the US and has reverted something, and you don't like it, does not automatically equal sock. Open an investigation, but don't automatically call every IP a sock unless you have evidence. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, the behavioral evidence of Boulder, Colorado IPs following SPECIFICO around and reinstating her edits verbatim, replete with personal attacks, is overwhelming and has been documented at great length on numerous occassions and supported by several admins. If you don't know how WP:SPIs work (e.g., that checkuser will never be used to connect an IP with a named account), that's fine, but your ignorance of such matters is irrelevant to this talk page. Furthermore, that you may like Oneshot's sockpuppetry also has no bearing on whether or not it should be accepted by the community. In fact, the exact IP you are defending was already named an apparent sock by admin EdJohnston. I apologize if this response seems overly terse, but your assertion that my evidence consists of "an IP lives somewhere in the US and has reverted something, and you don't like it" can only be read as a bad faith accusation or, more probably, an admission that you did almost no research before commenting.TheTimesAreAChanging(talk) 21:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The Crusader Rabbit anti-IP agenda does not belong on this article talk page. Many of the oft-disparaged edits from various IPs are good policy-based article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course you would think that, SPECIFICO, given that Oneshot is usually just helping you edit war by reinstating your edits verbatim: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] That said, IP hopping to get around edit warring restrictions is unhelpful and disruptive, like it or not. I already said that this topic "is irrelevant to this talk page," and, since you just repeated my sentiment above, I don't know why you would continue beating this dead horse—especially with more of the ludicrous pop culture references you seem to have a penchant for and that serve only as a distraction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead but also body

Agree per comments above that the Washington Monthly piece does not even say what it is being presented via the cite in the lead as saying (it's much vaguer than that, and aimed more at the Nation piece than the VIPS report itself). Perhaps people are also justifying this lead text because of this sentence in the body, about the 2013 Syria memo?

• "However, when asked about the identity of their sources, the group's report turned out to be based on an article from a conspiracy website "Global Research" and, Infowars, the radio show of the far right commentator and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones."

This is cited to this piece in the New Republic. It is highly critical of VIPS, but does not say anything like that. That piece mostly takes to task a separate article written by someone who signed the VIPS open letter, which does indeed include claims sourced (stupidly, tbh) to those two sites. However, this is not the same as the *VIPS memo* being sourced *only* to those sites, which is what the text claims. It's also horribly written. N-HH talk/edits 21:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh? It says almost exactly that. Quote: "The sources for VIPS' most sensational claims, it turns out, are Canadian eccentric Michel Chossudovsky’s conspiracy site Global Research and far-right shock-jock Alex Jones’s Infowars"

I have no idea where you got your claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And to be perfectly clear, it does NOT say that these sources were sources for some "separate article". It explicitly states that these conspiracy/far-right sources were the sources for "most sensational claims", i.e. what's in the open letter, i.e. the *VIPS memo*. It's just that the signatories of that "separate article" fessed up about where they got the idea when asked. Please don't try to muddy the waters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I "got my claims" from reading the entire piece – something you obviously could not have had time to do before knee-jerk reverting – and understanding the distinction between the actual VIPS memo and one VIPS member's claims in a separate piece. You have not read it properly. It does not refer to any confession from VIPS – indeed the author explicitly says they were "evasive" about it, so he's extrapolating from the Giraldi piece. Sure, make or argue for other changes, but please can people apply a little thought to all this rather than playing partisan games and just reverting back in really shit and misleading text. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 21:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

FFS. You're now even blindly reverting the whole thing again, including my sorting out the reference, adding attribution and improving the garbled English? This really is pathetic. N-HH talk/edits 21:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

" something you obviously could not have had time to do before knee-jerk reverting" - Hmmm, maybe I had time to do it during... the several days since I added that info? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Is that perhaps possible?

Anyway, here's the full relevant text from the source:

"VIPS insists its detailed account of the attack came from “a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East.” These have confirmed, they say, that the “chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters." Based on “some reports,” they allege, “canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened." They forcefully reject the notion that “a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area."

I asked three of the signatories about their sources. They proved curiously evasive. But one VIPS member, Philip Giraldi, has since published an article in The American Conservative—and the reason for their hesitation has become obvious. The sources for VIPS' most sensational claims, it turns out, are Canadian eccentric Michel Chossudovsky’s conspiracy site Global Research and far-right shock-jock Alex Jones’s Infowars. The specific article that Giraldi references carries the intriguing headline “Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?” (The answer, in case you wondered, is yes.) The author is one Yossef Bodansky—an Israeli-American supporter of Assad’s uncle Rifaat, who led the 1982 massacre in Hama. Bodansky’s theory was widely circulated after an endorsement from Rush Limbaugh. A whole paragraph from Bodansky’s article makes it into the VIPS letter intact, with only a flourish added at the end. "

So let's see:

"detailed account of the attack"

"came from “a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East.”

"Based on “some reports,” they allege"

"They forcefully reject the notion"

"I asked three of the signatories about their sources"

"one VIPS member, Philip Giraldi, has since published an article in The American Conservative" (my emphasis)

"The sources for VIPS' most sensational claims, it turns out, are Canadian eccentric Michel Chossudovsky’s conspiracy site Global Research and far-right shock-jock Alex Jones’s Infowars"

To be clear again - maybe it will help this time - this is indeed about the VIPS memo, not "one VIPS member's claim"

So, what's the lesson here?

Well, one of them might be that if you're gonna accuse others of not reading the source, it's probably best to actually read it yourself.

The text is fine, it accurately represents the source. Accurately representing the source is not "playing games". Like I said in the edit summary. You got this backward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You're now even blindly reverting the whole thing again, including my sorting out the reference, adding attribution and improving the garbled English? This really is pathetic" - if you had given me a second before reverting I would have put the full reference back in. As to "garbled English and attribution" - frankly, it's your English prose which is hard to understand. It's a clumsy run-on sentence with confusing syntax and subject verb agreement (like what the antifa does "criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources to contradict the "considered judgment"" actually mean?). Indeed, the confusing and discombobulated way that whole sentence is written is a pretty good signal that it's trying to weasel and misrepresent (writing incomprehensibly is a pretty good tactic for NOT conveying important information, which appears to be the purpose here).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, so you read it earlier. But as noted, you can't have read through my objections, re the detail of what he says as opposed to cherry-picked hyperbole, the grammar, the need for attribution etc. And you're just reverting my attempts to deal with those issues all out. As noted in my edit summary "it turns out .." is the author's *interpretation* at that point in the piece, based on his reading of the subsequent Giraldi piece. Earlier, he acknowledges that they relied on personal sources too. You've also elided the "most sensational" qualification, to suggest *all* their claims were based on Infowars and Global Research. N-HH talk/edits 22:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

" you can't have read through my objections, re the detail of what he says as opposed to cherry-picked hyperbole, the grammar, the need for attribution etc." - of course I could have. I don't know about you, but it doesn't take me that long to read one sentence + one edit summary. I mean, yes, the confusing way in which your sentence was written gave me pause, but it's still just one sentence. "It turns out" is not "interpretation", where do you get that? If I think Barca beat Real Madrid 3:1 but "it turns out" that they actually lost 0:2 that doesn't make their loss "my interpretation". ???. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine, you read that too then, if you say so. But not so you managed to take any of the points or problems on board. And could you tell me where my text is "misrepresenting the source". The point is we are pulling different things out, with you excluding significant qualifications and details (and offering no explanation for that when it is pointed out to you). Of course the "it turns out" is interpretation. He explains himself that he's basing that judgement on the later piece. Jesus. And you're still blanket-reverting back in a fucked-up reference and appalling English. Why should anyone bother trying to improve a page here, and open a talk page section to discuss it, when people like you come along and behave like a total dickhead? N-HH talk/edits 22:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I said. It's actually your version that has "appalling English". Run-on. Messy subject-verb agreement. Too many clauses crammed into too few characters. You still have it backwards. I'm pretty sure the reference is fine now. A good starting point for discussion would be too stop pretending the source doesn't say what it actually says. The quote has been provided multiple times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean to say that you, too, think VM is a total dickhead? Perhaps there are yet others who think as we do – perish the thought. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, reread your text, and look up "dangling modifier" and how to use commas. Also look up what a "run-on" actually is and tell me where I can find what "clauses crammed into .. characters" means. Also reread my comments, where I have never "pretended" that the piece doesn't say the things you quote from it; the issue is how to summarise the actual facts reported in the piece rather than just relying on the elements of polemic and conjecture in it and presenting those as facts (if we use it at all). By contrast, you literally have not responded directly to a single point I have made. This kind of talk page obfuscation and refusal to edit collaboratively while defending such tendentious and badly written content is exactly what makes WP such a useless resource. N-HH talk/edits 09:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that the New Republic source meets rs, since it is basically a brief opinion piece rather than a news report. It's factually incorrect. Giraldi did not attribute his sources to Global Research, but wrote, "There are other anomalies we mention in our letter that also have been noted by others...." and provided a link to an article in Global Research. However, as is clear in the Global Research site, the article was originally published elsewhere. The author is Yossef Bodansky who was Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004. TFD (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. Absent better sources, the "August 2013 memo" section should be deleted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The New Republic is a perfectly reliable source. You can ask about it at RSN if you have doubts. Yes, like magazines such as Mother Jones, The Nation, National Review and even Time, Newsweek and Economist it mixes news reporting with some commentary. But this is pretty standard and does not invalidate it (else we'd have to remove a ton of sources from ton of articles). In many ways it's more reliable than outlets with shorter and sketchier pedigrees such as Salon, Slate or Politico (nevermind crap like The Intercept). The NR article most certainly contains news investigative reporting (the author talked to sources and people involved with the creation of the report, and is reporting what they said - that's investigative reporting)

I don't see it as "factually incorrect" either. Making that argument based on the fact that the author didn't link the article you think he should've linked is a huge stretch. And it's not our job to interpret sources, so this is WP:OR. So this source is just fine.

Other issue here is notability. In some ways this particular memo - concerning the Ghouta attack - is more notable than their latest dinky little conspiracy theory about this Fornicator or whatever anonymous "expert" ConsortiumNews pulled out of their ass.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I also wonder about whether at present we have sufficient sources to say much about this. I have not seen a copy of the original report and wonder whether the Nation article accurately described it. TFD (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If by "this" you mean VIPS's July 2017 memo, you can read it here, based in part on Forensicator's analysis here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes TFD I think you got a little confused here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the 2013 Syria memo, surely (which explicitly states from the outset their sources are former co-workers)? The problem with the New Republic piece, as noted, is that the author does not show that the memo is based on Global Research or Infowars, but rather simply asserts as much based on the fact that the later piece written by one of the signatories refers to them, among other sources, and that some wording is shared between the VIPS letter and the Global Research piece (and as also noted, the Global Research-hosted piece was actually republished from somewhere else). The NR author also very much did not speak to people involved: the key point of his piece is that VIPS would not tell him who or what their sources were, so he's trying to work it out for himself. Generally though, I'd agree the New Republic piece is an OK source as long as we stick to the factual elements of it, but it would be better a) to see some wider coverage of the memo, if there is any, and b) to avoid the more polemical and speculative assertions made in the New Republic. N-HH talk/edits 09:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No, no, no! You are still trying to completely misrepresent the source. What the author does is say that the signatories, who also wrote another article, told him that the info was based on Infowar and Consortiumnews. That's it. I have no idea how you're making this stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's what Ahmad actually says:

VIPS insists its detailed account of the attack came from "a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East." ... I asked three of the signatories about their sources. They proved curiously evasive. But one VIPS member, [former CIA officer] Philip Giraldi, has since published an article in The American Conservative—and the reason for their hesitation has become obvious. The sources for VIPS' most sensational claims, it turns out, are Canadian eccentric Michel Chossudovsky's conspiracy site Global Research and far-right shock-jock Alex Jones's Infowars. The specific article that Giraldi references carries the intriguing headline "Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?" (The answer, in case you wondered, is yes.) The author is one Yossef Bodansky—an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat, who led the 1982 massacre in Hama. ... A whole paragraph from Bodansky's article makes it into the VIPS letter intact, with only a flourish added at the end. ... Giraldi references two more articles to substantiate his claim: one from Infowars and another from DailyKos. But both reference the same source, an obscure website called Mint Press ... What of VIPS's "numerous sources in the Middle East," then? It turns out they're the same as Bodansky's "numerous sources in the Middle East"—the sentence is plagiarized.

Then again, Giraldi also cites reputable outlets including The Washington Post and The Guardian, not to mention whitehouse.gov and Médecins Sans Frontières. Furthermore, as TFD noted above, Bodansky "was Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004"; Global Research expressly states that it merely republished Bodansky's article from elsewhere. Using this "republication" to tie VIPS to Global Research through Giraldi and Bodansky is, in fact, somewhat reminiscent of the tactics of McCarthyism, if not Stalinism. It's clear that Ahmad's account differs significantly from Volunteer Marek's confused summary "that the signatories, who also wrote another article, told [Ahmad] that the info was based on Infowar and Consortiumnews." A more neutral summary might be: "Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, writing in The New Republic, criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources and stated that its 'most sensational claims' appeared to be largely 'plagiarized' from an article by Yossef Bodansky, whom Ahmad characterizes as 'an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat.'" What do you think of that?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, here is a fuller quote from Ahmad on Giraldi:

Giraldi references two more articles to substantiate his claim: one from Infowars and another from DailyKos. But both reference the same source, an obscure website called Mint Press which published an article claiming that Syrian rebels had accidentally set off a canister of Sarin supplied to them by the Saudis. The idea that an accident in one place would cause over a thousand deaths in 12 separate locations—with none affected in areas in between—somehow did not strike this intelligence veteran as implausible. But to its credit, Mint Press has since added a disclaimer: "Some information in this article could not be independently verified."

As damning as it may be, however, this criticism is directed only at Giraldi's piece in The American Conservative—not VIPS directly—and as such is beyond the scope of this page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Some confusion (sub-section header added by VM)

Sorry, I had not been able to find it. But notice the the report says that due to the transfer speed a hack was "unlikely," while the Nation article says it was impossible. TFD (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You're still confusing two different things TFD. This section is about the 2013 memo. The stuff about the hack is about a recent 2017 memo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of which are commonly known to be untrue. Even if a source states that strawberries are produced asexually, that doesn't mean we put it in WP. It just flags us to evaluate the source more closely. SPECIFICO talk 11:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Both of which are commonly known to be untrue" could not be more incorrect. 22 MBPS between the US and Romania is extremely unlikely if not impossible. Akamai and other CDNs maintain geographically proximate replicated servers (and companies utilize their services) to expedite content delivery. You (and Feldman in NY Mag) are essentially claiming an entire business model is bunk despite multibillion-dollar market caps.

Regarding Feldman, you have not addressed my concerns from a week ago that neither NY Mag nor Feldman are qualified to offer expert technical assessments. What makes your reluctance especially confusing is the multiple, instances in which you insisted expert claims (even those reported in expert publications) should not be included unless the author's expertise could be demonstrated. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently they're helluva more technically qualified than The Nation, Lawrence, VIPS or this "Fornicator" "hacker", or yourself for that matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It is unlikely that a hacker could have attained those speeds. Remember that the official theory was that the Russians carried out the hack by using people posing as an independent hacker in Eastern Europe. IIRC, the necessary speeds were not available to retail customers even in First World Countries. Using a proxy server to distinguish the source would also slow things down. Of course it is possible that the hacks were carried out directly from KGB headquarters. The other issue is whether the DNC servers could upload that fast. And of course we don't know if the DNC could upload at those speeds. TFD (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it's actually certain that at some point they "attained those speeds".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning. Obviously if the DNC was hacked then those speeds were attained. But then it have had to be hacked through KGB servers, not by Guccifer 2.0 in Romania. TFD (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. See FallingG's links below. The speeds could - probably were - attained simply when the hacked files were transferred or copied by the hacker before being released. Even if there is some metadata which indicates these speeds there's no reason to believe that these speeds refer to the rate at which the files were downloaded from the original source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

These festivals of OR and rumination are characteristic of fake news. They're like the cheese to tempt the mice. Only none of us here is a mouse. Whatever happened to RS and due weight? SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This article and podcast on TechTarget might be helpful. ^Falling_Gravity 00:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for that FG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not OR to say that the Nation article may not have accurately reflected what VIPS said. You want it both ways: it misrepresented the science but accurately presented what VIPS said about it. think about SPECIFICO, you are going to use a fakenews article about VIPS. TFD (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I would not use the Nation. Marginal at best. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, The Nation is one of the oldest and most prestigious political magazines in the United States, of a vastly higher quality than your preferred Salon, and you will never persuade anyone of anything with one-line dismissals such as "marginal at best." (Then again, what else can we expect from the editor responsible for the truly astonishing claim that "You may not be familiar with the American journalism sphere, but let me assure you that the Oregonian is a higher journalistic stature than either the New Republic or the Guardian"?) It's fair to say that Lawrence's article suffers from relying excessively—in fact, exclusively—on VIPS itself for all of its technical claims—rather than requesting input from independent cybersecurity experts—but there is no reason to doubt that The Nation is a WP:RS for what VIPS said, both in its memo and in subsequent interviews conducted by Lawrence. To the contrary, Lawrence's account of the VIPS memo is by far the most in-depth available in the mainstream press, as virtually all other sources are derivative.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am one of the oldest and most prodigious editors on WP. I do not hold the Nation's recent work in high regard. Unless you can find a diff where I state that I prefer Salon to The Nation you'd be well-advised to strike this misrepresentation and comment on content not contibutors. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff where SPECIFICO eliminates The Nation, New York, and The Hill, while retaining Salon as the only secondary source on the July 2017 VIPS memo. Assuming good faith, it would appear that SPECIFICO considered Salon to be the strongest secondary source—even though it's article was largely based on Lawrence's prior work at The Nation! I am willing to concede, however, that it is more likely that SPECIFICO was deliberately purging the best sources to pave the way for WP:AFD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This is woefully inadequate and does still misrepresent the source. First, ConsortiumNews and InfoWars needs to be mentioned. Second, to say that the criticism was that the sources were "anonymous" is inaccurate. They were presented as anonymous, but then turned out to be ConsortiumNews and InfoWars. That is why this info needs to be there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As explained at length above, no connection between Bodansky and Global Research has been documented besides two of the former's articles being republished by the latter. In this case, the author is more significant than the publisher host. Ahmad does not mention Robert Parry's self-published Consortium News.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got my conspiracy websites confused. Global Research. I don't know about any connection between Bodasky and Global Research. What matters is that the source explicitly states: "However, when asked about the identity of their sources, the group's report turned out to be based on an article from a conspiracy website "Global Research" and, Infowars, the radio show of the far right commentator and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones." You can't get around that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think what N-HH and I have been arguing is that, while Ahmad does open with that provocative assertion, the rest of his article presents a (slightly) more nuanced picture.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

At this point further discussion is pointless, since James J. Lambden has taken it upon himself to follow my edits and revenge-revert them on multiple articles. How am I suppose to participate in any productive discussion under these circumstances? So I don't particularly feel like putting thought and effort into answering you, because, you know, what's the point of that, if my edits will be automatically reverted by some obnoxious and creepy stalker? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And the obvious purpose of this assholery is to provoke me into breaking 3RR so he can go running to the admin board. That and more generally to, as he had stated several months prior, to drive me off of Wikipedia. So I'm not feeling particularly friendly right now Times, and it's probably best if we continue this conversation at some other time. Anyway, thank you for constructive discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

VM: Don't misrepresent the truth. Just today you have followed me to 3 articles where your only contributions were to revert my edits. It's shocking you would pull that then try to paint yourself a victim.

TTAC: Did you have objections to N-HH's original edit or was this compromise only to appease VM? If he's withdrawing that's unnecessary. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Unproductive bickering
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Stop lying Lambden. You've been stalking my edits for the past six months. I have raised complaints about it repeatedly. Lately you've adopted this sleazy tactic of accusing me of what you yourself have been doing. It's bunkum and you know it. Look at your last 500 edits. How many of them do NOT involve you stalking my edits, performing revenge-reverts or jumping into discussion to support whoever is disagreeing with me at the time? 5? 10 maybe? Then do that for your last 1000 edits. Same thing. Go back to September 2016. Same thing. You're freakin' obsessed and it's creepy as fuck. Get a life.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC) This talk page isn't the place for this discussion and frankly your behavior is toxic but I find it hilarious that you would spin you following me to 3 articles to revert my edits as me stalking you! Is this like the movies where a regular detective follows his mark from behind but the skilled detective follows them from in front? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Ten months worth of your edit history says otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC) 30 minutes ago I had been stalking you for 6 months, now it's 10 months. I don't know whether to be offended by the ever-growing misrepresentation or impressed that I fit 4 months of stalking into 30 minutes. Alright this is past productive, I'll give you the last word. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I think my version's better.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. What about my removal of Feldman? I asked Specifico for objections but I'm not getting any. @SPECIFICO: James J. Lambden (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Hill article is far better, but I don't really feel very strongly about Feldman either way.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that's in-depth. I'll re-read it. The Feldman article (NY Mag) is barely a few of paragraphs and some tweets from a former "Meme"-maker with no apparent national security or technical qualifications. Can I ask (beyond that it's RS) was your reasons for inclusion are? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it wasn't based on an article in Global Research, it mentioned that that article reached similar conclusions. I might conclude something then find you have independently arrived at the same conclusion: that does not mean I am basing my conclusion on what you say. Furthermore, Global Research is not the original publisher. They pick up articles from many sources. Note that the author was a counterterrorism expert for congress for 16 years.TFD (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy has ignored my latest compromise proposal and has instead restored content that N-HH, The Four Deuces, James J. Lambden, and myself have already demonstrated to be misleading and inaccurate in extensive discussion above. Iryna Harpy has made no substantive comments on the talk page, has not addressed any of the issues raised by the aforementioned editors, and has explained her edit in only the vaguest of generalities—giving no indication that she even bothered to read the source or consider the counter-arguments before reverting. (She has, however, taken the time to accuse me of cyberbullying, with no diffs, on my talk page!) Her only attempt at elaboration comes from her edit summary, in which she states that my prose is "convoluted," adding: "Attribution is one thing, trying too hard to make a point is another." "Convoluted" how? What "point," specifically, am I trying to make? Here are the two versions side-by-side:

My proposal: Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, writing in The New Republic, criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources and stated that its "most sensational claims" appeared to be largely "plagiarized" from an article by Yossef Bodansky, whom Ahmad characterizes as "an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat." Ahmad also noted that one of the letter's signatories—Philip Giraldi—cited dubious sources related to the Ghouta attack in a piece for The American Conservative, including Daily Kos and Alex Jones's Infowars.

Volunteer Marek's proposal: Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, writing in The New Republic, criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources and stated that its "most sensational claims" appeared to be largely "plagiarized" from an article by Yossef Bodansky, whom Ahmad characterizes as "an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat." The author also stated that when asked about the identity of their sources, the group's report turned out to be based on an article from a conspiracy website "Global Research" and, Infowars, the radio show of the far right commentator and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

In what way is the former more "convoluted" than the latter? Given that the first sentence already critiques Bodansky's expertise, why should the second bring up Global Research—which happened to republish Bodansky's article—and falsely imply that "conspiracy website Global Research" is where Bodansky's work originated? Why did Iryna Harpy restore the false implication that VIPS named Infowars as a source "when asked" by Ahmad—something flatly contradicted by Ahmad himself? Iryna Harpy has offered no good answers to these questions, or, indeed, any answers at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Oh, for goodness sake, anyone reading the two versions can see the difference. I'm not going to indulge you in a wall of text parsing the emphasis and de-emphasis taking place between the versions: it's there in black and white for all editors to see. Let's not even start on the twisting of WP:WORDS ("noted", "dubious", et al) in order to render a fake legitimacy to trash sources... As to your characterisation of me and my 'right' to edit the article, I've been watching this article with great care for (literally) years. The fact that I don't wish to engage in the battleground that is laughingly referred to as a 'talk page' is irrelevant to my participation in the editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

TTAC: Your text is an improvement because it omits Ahmad's speculation.

@Iryna Harpy: Drive-by reverts are unhelpful especially when coupled with a reluctance to engage on talk. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, James J. Lambden! Drive-by?! Have you bothered to look at the article history? Talk about battleground editing (including yourself). Lecturing experienced editors on how or how not to edit when dealing with attempts to keep a trashy article alive because they have a point to make is neither your call, nor is it appropriate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy: "Let's not even start on the twisting of WP:WORDS ('noted', "dubious", 'et al') in order to render a fake legitimacy to trash sources"? "Et al" isn't in my proposal. Calling "trash sources" "dubious" does not bolster their "legitimacy"; in fact, quite the contrary. "Noted" is in reference to Ahmad, the author of The New Republic article harshly critical of VIPS and Giraldi, not one of the "trash sources." Your apparent lack of comprehension on that last point indicates that you should stop edit warring until you have done the most minimal research necessary to participate in the discussion. After all, competence is required.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise I'd be fine with TheTimes' if DailyKos and AmericanConservative are removed. Written as is suggests a certain equivocation between those and Info War. And even those are not reliable sources they're not as wacky as IW. Global Research should also be put back in. The identification of that particular sentence from the NR article with one particular GR article is original research and synthesis. GR has been pushing this (and other conspiracies) before and after and independently of Bodansky.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Volunteer Marek, reading the entire source is not original research and synthesis! Read it again:

The specific article that Giraldi references carries the intriguing headline "Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?" (The answer, in case you wondered, is yes.) The author is one Yossef Bodansky—an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat, who led the 1982 massacre in Hama. ... A whole paragraph from Bodansky's article makes it into the VIPS letter intact, with only a flourish added at the end. ... What of VIPS's "numerous sources in the Middle East," then? It turns out they're the same as Bodansky's "numerous sources in the Middle East"—the sentence is plagiarized.

If you really want to include the Global Research smear/innuendo, we could amend my proposal, but then it would make things more "convoluted":

Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, writing in The New Republic, criticized the letter's reliance on anonymous sources and stated that its "most sensational claims" appeared to be largely "plagiarized" from an article written by Yossef Bodansky and republished by "conspiracy site" Global Research. Ahmad characterizes Bodansky as "an Israeli-American supporter of Assad's uncle Rifaat." Ahmad also noted that one of the letter's signatories—Philip Giraldi—cited dubious sources related to the Ghouta attack in a piece for The American Conservative, including Daily Kos and Alex Jones's Infowars.

I'm also willing to drop Daily Kos, even though it's in the source, hence the strike. Deal?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a used car lot. We follow policy not bargain deals. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that non sequitur, SPECIFICO. The current version violates numerous policies, starting with WP:V, by misrepresenting the cited source, as exhaustively explained by N-HH, TFD, James J. Lambden, and myself. Volunteer Marek and I are often able to compromise, and I would like to think that we're not very far from doing so in this case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Deal

SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I see, TheTimesAreAChanging. In other words, you (in particular) and VM WP:OWN the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with this version. I don't think it's ideal but it will work as a compromise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this an ongoing active group?

No RS tells us that this is a coherent active continuously functioning "group" of any sort. More the opposite. 25 former spooks got together 15 years ago to protest Bush Administration actions. Did they organize legally or in any other formal action, e.g. with a statement of principles, purpose and procedure? Do they meet or at least communicate from time to time, or have any coherent governance? Do they have continuous ongoing membership or activities. It could just be different folks reusing the catchy VIPS tag. The article sounds on a quick and casual read as if this were a bona-fide "group" like the Union of Concerned Scientists or at least one of thousands of other affinity organizations. But sources and the article say nothing to support presenting it as if it were an organized entity. The article merely lists a succession of protests, some detailed and reasoned, others gross and goofy. Of the 25 retired folks who wrote the memos 15 years back, how many are still affiliated with the "organization" -- i.e. put out press releases under this monicker? Of the ones who were retired senior citizens back in the day, how many are still sharp and in touch with current intelligence in their much later years? Arguably RS tell us some of them are relying on pretty sketchy narratives for their ruminations, witness the manifest errors and omissions as reported in RS. Maybe AfD is coming down the pike? Discuss amongst yourselves. SPECIFICO talk 11:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

One possible way to deal with this would be a change of article title to "Veteran...Sanity (memos)" or some other title that does not portray these statements as coming from an established or continuous organization. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

From an editorial viewpoint, the problem is similar in many fake news articles. Recently this arose in Murder of Seth Rich. The meta-event is notable, but the event is not. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

How is The Nation's report on the VIPS / Forensicator theory "fake news"? Looks like plain old "news" to me. Or are you saying that the self-titled VIPS is fake because it's apparently not an incorporated group? Even then, we can have real news about a fake group. I'd appreciate a clarification of what you call fake. — JFG ^talk 04:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mention the nation in this section of the page. Please read up on "fake news" it's well defined, detailed and discussed in many RS publications that will do a better job than I of clarifying your general understanding. I respectfully suggest it would be time well spent, because a nose for fake news is key to our ability to edit according to WP policy and guidelines. I did not say that VIPS is fake. Please don't misrepresent other editors with straw man insinuations. Come to think of it, that's a favorite fake news tactic. Who can deny Seth Rich was murdered? Therefore the Russians didn't hack DNC. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "the problem is similar in many fake news articles", which prompted my question: "what do you call fake news in sources or contents of this article? Thanks for clarifying that you do not consider VIPS to be a fake group and you do not consider The Nation to peddle fake news. The Seth Rich controversy is irrelevant to the present discussion, I don't see why you bring it up. — JFG ^talk 09:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You can follow the links to their papers here, which list steering committee members. Mind you, we may lack sufficient reliable sources for a neutral article. Note there is no website so we cannot even use that as a source. Personally I would vote to delete the article, but it's difficult to get anything deleted. TFD (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Right. But if I may state my personal conjecture, I think it may be like many volunteer organizations of retirees geezers and brilliant kibitzers. Many such groups resurrect the "organization" name from time to time when one of them has something on her mind, but it's really just ad hoc, personal, and not the considered position of any group. AfD would bring a blizzard of fake newsicles and snowman arguments. Not worth the trouble just now. Also we could have a Seth Rich type situation where the story is one day revealed about the mysterious fake news propagation of what turns out to be goofy packet-counting propaganda. The dude hosting that website doesn't have a James Bond resume. I thought these were ex-CIA types. Anyway, it looks like a stale zombie website from the early Bush thingy was replaced only about 6 weeks ago by the one that's now featured. The website title doesn't seem very intel-like, does it? SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your WP:OR and "personal conjecture" has no place in a sober discussion of the article topic. But I'm sure you know that. — JFG ^talk 09:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear! Let me explain. WP operates on an affirmative editorial policy. My conjecture, identified as such (not OR, see?) was to point out how you can convince folks of the contrary. Just show RS citations that document this "group" as an ongoing organization rather than a ketchy title in the internet, VIPS. And the more we see, the more likely it appears that's not going to happen. So now please lay off the personal remarks and simply prove your case. I leave you to your proof. The burden is on you to develop policy-based content. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

My friend, I have no "case" to "prove". I was simply wondering how your ruminations about VIPS may help improve the article. For the record, I don't care whether VIPS exists as an organized group and I have not contributed to this particular article. RS refer to the group as VIPS, so it's only natural that the article follows sources. I originally hatted this section per WP:NOTFORUM (which you reverted) and I don't see how the latest contributions bring us any closer to improvements. — JFG ^talk 15:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't understand, I suggest you back off. This thread is about sourcing and content. Others have contributed and will continue to do so. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me I understand the point you are making. You are asking other editors to find sources proving that this group meets some definition of "permanent", "active" or "organized" that would SATISFY you. And you insinuate that if people can't readily find such sources, then it discredits whatever is written by VIPS, in the name of VIPS, or about VIPS in various RS. Sounds like "I don't like what these people are saying, so I'll question their relevance" kind of ad hominem argument. Again, if you have some proposed improvements to the article, rather than vague suppositions, I'd love to read about them and educate myself further. — JFG ^talk 16:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're the one who's off-base on a valid line of discussion and tossing in bad faith criticisms of other editors about this line of questioning. You are overlooking the fact that the existence of the group meets with WP:V, but it does not follow on that there is an article in it as the article is about VIPS, not "VIPS memos" (which wouldn't fly as an article unless who they are and their mission statement was defined by RS). We're not talking about a terrorist group, for example, making high profile news in RS, yet no one knows anything about their political/religious/general raison d'être/raisons d'être for their actions/memos/existence, while their actions are well documented. You are also overlooking the fact that there is a lack of RS on the group and the memos, ergo there is nothing to build a well constructed and neutral article on (as has been intelligently pointed out by both SPECIFICO and TFD in this section). A grab-bag of only a few of their many memos base on, "Oooh, they made some really good points"; "Oooh, they got it really, really wrong that time (hahaha!)!"; "Oooh, predictions of vital importance to civilization as we know it." doesn't tell us anything about VIPS, nor their ever-changing line up of notables (WP:INHERITORG) and non-notables. This isn't an encyclopaedic article, but an excuse to POVPUSH from both sides. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I totally agree with you that pronouncements from VIPS have been more covered than VIPS themselves. That's not necessarily a bad thing: it's more informative to read about what they say than about who they are. Still, RS call them VIPS and do not question their existence or their biographies. It would be nice indeed to find some sources discussing VIPS as a group independently of their latest blurbs; however, absent such sources, we make do with what we have. I do believe it's better to have an umbrella article about VIPS listing their various well-sourced positions, rather than a smorgasbrod of 1EVENT articles on "VIPS supported A", "VIPS criticized B", "VIPS re-emerged to contradict C". The very fact that their name comes up in different stories several years apart adds to their inherent notability as a group. — JFG ^talk 20:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the suitability of this article for the encyclopedia, I might even support an AfD if somebody makes a sound policy-based case for deletion. — JFG ^talk 20:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Like if some magazine says there's this lady, shows up and says she's Amelia Earhart and she saw a UFO... We'll just tack that on to her article. It's a tautology that any of us "might even support an AfD if somebody makes a good sound policy-based case for deletion" so that's certainly not helpful. What might be helpful would be changing the name of this article to match the topic: "the VIPS memos" -- that would do the trick. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As has been noted, it's difficult to delete an article once it already exists. I honestly think that without reliably sourced content on who they are as a group (for example, at least one of the signatories to the 2003 memo has died since), the article will continue to serve as a disservice to them. There's nothing to suggest to me that they're some ad hoc bunch of doolally retirees, but their sources and opinions have been questioned. Finding some quality sources really is a make or break deal for the integrity of the article. I don't believe that changing the title to "Memos" is the best approach as it is still contingent on a knowledge of who the group are. Still, I'm open to being convinced as the current article is a fiasco. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right - even that title would lead readers to infer that there is such a thing as VIPS. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Intercept

Actually, The Intercept is probably just fine as a reliable source, but the wording I reverted is completely ridiculous. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Needs a tag for disputed neutrality

Here we have a wonderfully neutral article which spends something like half its content attempting to smear the credibility of people who have spent large portions of their lives analysing data in a professional capacity. Naturally it is SHOCKING to find many of the partisan accounts typical of other political articles here on the talk page. Yet another excellent reminder of why Wikipedia should stay the hell away from reporting current events.129.72.91.170 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)