United States Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contesting the speedy notice: This page should not be speedily deleted because the item I was paraphrasing came from Citation 1: "a new transatlantic project aimed at countering Russian information warfare". Knowing nothing more, the descrption stems from the web page of the topic, Citation 2. I can certainly expand the meaning of "bipartisan" meaning both Democratic and Republican support,^[1] and "transatlantic", meaning both US and Germany,^[2] at the minimum. I believe that "Russian information warfare", or cyberwarfare is well-documented. The topic's "mission statement" could replace the word "status".

The Marshall Plan is well-known, as is German Marshall Fund--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re CSD A7 The Germans are vitally interested in the topic of Russian interference, as well.^[2]

The opening line, as it stands now, is a violation of NPOV:

"The Alliance for Securing Democracy is a transatlantic project dedicated to countering Russian interference, propaganda, and other efforts to undermine the democratic institutions of Europe and America."

This sentence states ASD's point of view, that Russia is trying to subvert democracy in Europe and the US, in Wikipedia's authoritative voice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read NPOV. The current text is verified by the sources. Take this to NPOVN to put any remaining worries to rest. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:NPOV. The current text takes an opinion and restates it as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice. In order to retain neutrality, we have to attribute ASD's opinions to the group, instead of taking them for granted. This really is quite simple and straightforward: The ASD states that Russia is trying to undermine European and American democracy, and that it (the ASD) aims to protect democracy. We can state those things with attribution. There's no reason to state them as fact, because we don't know if they're true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the version on the right is more neutral: diff. The version on the left comes across as WP:ADVOCACY rendered in Wikipedia's voice. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to endure the recurring typo? At least fix the misspelling of 'insidious' during these edit wars ... --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits were not an improvement; pls see diff. Secondary sources are indeed useful -- they indicate that the mission of the org has been noted by independent sources. Pls also see my comment above on WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently "refimprove" and "primary" tags on the page. I added a secondary source to the last sentence that was sourced only to ASD's website, so there aren't any sentences referenced only to ASD any more. Are there any other sentences that need secondary sourcing, or can we remove the "primary" tag? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a website with a verbatim quote of the other source is collinear and adds zilch. And who added the redlink I removed? Seriouly? SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you want. We're describing the mission statement of the ASD, and I cited a RS as a secondary source. What else do you want?

I added the redlink of Jamie Fly because they sound like a fairly important American political figure, and they don't yet have a Wikipedia entry. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to comment here, please respond to the problem I indicated above. You have a "source" who merely quoted verbatim the boiler plate declaration in the primary source. You removed secondary RS that gives an independent assessment of the organization based on the pertinent information available to it. Please review policy concerning OR and redlink guidelines. Please undo your edit. SPECIFICO talk 13:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more precise if you want to address what you see as sourcing problems. When you say, "You removed secondary RS that gives an independent assessment of the organization based on the pertinent information available to it," I don't know what source you're talking about. I'm removing the "primary" tag from the page, since nothing is exclusively sourced to primary sources any more. If you think there are still problems with primary sourcing, then please post an exact description of what the problems are, describing exactly which sentence is not properly sourced. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for overambitious editing by a newcomer. The Intercept article in the Advisory Council section seems heavily editorialized, its inclusion on the ASD page fails to note other ideological influences than the neoconservative, including significant representation (5 of 13) by Obama-era appointments. If this section is to mention partisanship it should include a more complete discussion; agreed that more secondary sourcing is necessary. MuiZdyes (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept's article actually notes the relationship between the Democratic party and neoconservatives inside the ASD. In fact, that looks to me to be the central point of The Intercept's article. This might not be paraphrased very well here, which is something we could work on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that source is just the author's (dubious) opinion. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion is notable enough to include. It appears in a publication of some weight and is written by a well-known American commentator on national security affairs. The opinion is attributed, so I think it's clear we're relating an opinion. If it sounds like the statement is in Wikipedia's voice, we can address that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Blind reverts are not helpful. Once your preferred text has been reverted, reinstatement requires consensus if that were possible. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't make specific suggestions, it's hard to proceed. I don't know what, exactly you object to. I asked, above, what your specific issues were with primary sourcing. You still haven't responded there. Just telling me you object in a general way isn't helpful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence, "The alliance is chaired and run primarily by former senior United States intelligence and State Department officials" is currently inaccurate and unsupported by its sourcing. The Washington Post article cited describes operation by 'national security figures', and former national security advisers (a broader category) make up a larger portion of leadership than intelligence officials (specific and only clearly represented by one person) . I suggest changing the wording to 'former senior United States national security officials,' but am open to discussing the issue before making further changes. MuiZdyes (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording is accurate, but it could be reworded to something like, "senior United States national security officials, including US intelligence and State Department figures." -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MuiZydes: Correct. We need to stick with only what WaPo says, not adding b's like senior officials etc. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times (28 September 2017) pp.A1,A16 is reporting that the AfSD is tracking the activities of 600 disruptive twitter bot accounts, and has identified a general strategy which the disruptions are taking. Is this a worthwhile section of the article? Such a section might be called Findings.

The disruptions basically attack the American cybersphere, to coin a phrase. It's not election interference per se, and is an ongoing activity of the bots, which perform "large-scale automated messaging" (The New York Times (28 September 2017) p.A1). As an example, secession movements in Texas and California have been tracked to the bots. These actions get identified, they shut down, and pop-up elsewhere. When I was going to school, the topic being disrupted would have been called Civics or Citizenship, and the teachers would give grades on our individual performance. Nascent citizens go to classes on this general kind of civic knowledge before their swearing-of-allegiance.

The strategy appears to be to attack quotidian aspects of American culture, for apparently no reason, except that in sum, they lead to cognitive overload. AfSD's Laura Rosenberger characterizes these bots' intent as to "create societal division" (The New York Times (28 September 2017) p.A16). Americans appear to be blind to the process, except for the initiatives of AfSD and perhaps other like-minded NGOs. It's as if there were no bots analogous to Wikipedia which serve to root out vandalism, etc. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source, which is already in use here, goes into detail about the ASD's social media tracking projects. Specifically, it goes into the three categories: accounts related to or suspected of being related to the Russian government and media (e.g., RT), "trolls" that retweet these messages, and finally, accounts which simply tweet messages that the ASD considers pro-Russian or anti-American. A quote that the Times of Israel highlights is: "By no means are we saying that the 500 accounts are run by a Russian operative." These methodological issues are very poorly covered here at the moment, but I'm not sure how to cover them without inflating the article significantly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The gratuitous insinuation of political disparagement culled from a scathing screed by pundit Glen Greenwald is UNDUE in this article -- the topic of which is the organization and its activities. Moreover the smears of various Advisors to ASD are irrelevant, SYNTH, ad hominem denigration of the organization.

This content has been challenged by reversion and was recently reinserted in the article without consensus. It should be removed and if anyone feels strongly about it, this talk page is the place to pursue your views. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us how you really feel. "Gratuitous insinuation of political disparagement culled from a scathing screed by pundit Glen Greenwald" [sic] is quite a mouthful! But seriously, we have two sentences from Greenwald's article (not screed) about the ASD. It's one of the more lengthy and in-depth pieces on the ASD that I've come across - there isn't a whole lot of coverage of them as a group. It's certainly worth the two short sentences it gets here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your words sum up everything wrong with this POV nonsense. It's UNDUE. It's SYNTH. "one of the ... that I've come across" is not our standard here. That's a page from your diary, but on WP we work from the weight of mainstream accounts and we accurately reflect what they say. Cherrypicking a self-published web pundit and then misrepresenting him is not OK, even if you personally choose not to "come across" the voluminous mainstream reporting on this ASD outfit. And of course the artfully excerpted smear you crafted serves to misrepresent the GG's statement while distorting WP's article. It insinuates an irrelevant smear (or what some readers may believe is a smear. Neocon. Bad. What's a neocon? Bad.) into an article that is dedicated to the topic of this organization and its activities. Don't throw up these straw men -- "surely worth two sentences" -- when the sentences violate site policy. SPECIFICO talk 13:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Greenwald's article is not UNDUE, POV or SYNTH. It's not self-published (it's published in The Intercept), and it's not misrepresented (his article is largely about the ASD's relationship to neoconservatism). You're throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks. Citing random Wikipedia acronyms ("SYNTH!") out of context isn't an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Greenwald sentence as per SPECIFICO's advice and until a consensus on its wording can be arrived at. Also, Thucydides411, your justification for reverting the material that I had put in that insinuated the irrelevancy ("synthesis," "other views") of providing the relevant contextual information about his views on the events which directly catalyzed the creation of this organization is just laughable. It's obvious with your edits that you have an axe to grind when it comes to this article (and articles like this) but do at the very least try to make the effort to not edit the article as if your were editing it in your sandbox.Wingwraith (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the description you added of Greenwald is synthesis is that it is your own compilation of other views that Greenwald has. Your addition drew a connection between Greenwald's article on the ASD and his views on a variety of other topics, based on a number of sources that don't mention the ASD at all. In other words, you synthesized a number of sources in order to make an original point.

Greenwald's article is relevant here, because it's directly about the ASD, and goes in depth into the politics surrounding it. As far as I'm aware, there have only been a few articles published that have discussed the ASD in such depth. SPECIFICO clearly doesn't like Glenn Greenwald and views anything he writes as a "screed," but other than that personal dislike, SPECIFICO hasn't given a reasonable argument for excluding this material. Listing one's favorite acronyms (POV, SYNTH, UNDUE) without any explanation of why those acronyms are relevant isn't an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't synthesis because as I said the material that I included are his views on the events that directly led to the creation of this organization so the "original point" point that you are raising is a non-starter. I don't have a problem with including his article in this article but let's not pretend that his views about ASD come from nowhere Wingwraith (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is the definition of synthesis: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. The sources you cited don't say that Greenwald published his article on the ASD because of the other views you listed. You're bringing several sources together to make a point that none of them individually makes - the four sources you cited don't even mention the ASD.

We don't actually need to say much about The Intercept or Glenn Greenwald. We should attribute his views to him, because that's what neutrality requires, but something as simple as this would do: "Writing in The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald comments that ..." -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making is something which Greenwald himself has admitted to which is that is not a neutral observer of what ASD does because he is a self-described skeptic of the investigations into the events that led to the creation of ASD. So where is the WP:SYNTH in that? Wingwraith (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with introducing the material with something like "progressive political journalist Glenn Greenwald writes that ..." However, listing a string of political positions he holds is too much. What I think is WP:SYNTH is citing a number of different articles which are unrelated to the ASD in order to establish Greenwald's background, and then implying that those other positions have to do with his article on the ASD. But as I said, I would view it as an acceptable compromise to frame Greenwald's observations about the political background of the ASD with some short description (like "progressive political journalist") of Greenwald. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "compromise" to violate WP site policy. Greenwald's ad hominem remarks about a couple of the personnel are not part of the mainstream description of ASD or its activities. They are UNDUE, SYNTH, POV and a BLP-smeary labeling of expert professionals by a marginal commentator in the organ he founded and controls. Find a mainstream RS that cites GG's opinion about ASD and there might be a case for including that in the article. Otherwise, this stuff needs to get out. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I thought I told you not to cite dozens of acronyms out of context. Stringing together "UNDUE," "SYNTH," "POV" and "BLP" with no explanation does not an argument make. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. We don't put fringe POV ad hominem denigration in an article that is about an organization and its activities. You've had your say. Nobody agrees with you. 3 editors have disagreed, while you continue to edit war this SYNTHY UNDUE nonsense into the article. Put it in the Greenwald article, it's a good example of his virulent anti-"neocon" labeling of people, places, and things. And don't misrepresent "the definition of SYNTH". If you really don't understand the issues here, review the policy pages on NPOV and NOR. And don't personalize your talk page comments. If you have anything worthwhile to offer, it can be stated in terms of policy, sources, and article content. The Intercept is Greenwald's organ. You will not find this kind of screed (yes) published by an independent organ. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read through your post, but unfortunately, I couldn't find a single thought-out point. Let me see if I can pick through the various pieces of spaghetti you just threw at the wall:

• You call inclusion of Greenwald's article "SYNTHY." How is does it fall under WP:SYNTH? I see absolutely no connection, and you don't provide one. As usual, you just declare that it is SYNTH.
• And don't misrepresent "the definition of SYNTH." I quoted directly from WP:SYNTH above, and explained how it applied. Here, you're just asserting that I misrepresented WP:SYNTH, but you don't give the slightest indication of how I misrepresented it.
• If you really don't understand the issues here, review the policy pages on NPOV and NOR. You haven't explained how you think I'm misunderstanding policies. You're just asserting that I've violated a bunch of acronyms you like to repeat, without giving any explanation of how you think those policies are violated here.
• The Intercept is Greenwald's organ. You're trying to stretch WP:SELFPUBLISHED to include The Intercept. You know full well that The Intercept has an editorial team (one that comes from well-respected newspapers) and employs a staff of journalists beyond Greenwald. It's a news organization. You don't like it, but that's not grounds for disregarding it. If you think The Intercept is unreliable, take it up with the reliable sources noticeboard.
• We don't put fringe POV ad hominem denigration in an article [...] This is just your way of complaining that you don't like the material.

We should have a rule moving forward: if you're going to post acronyms, you have to explain why they're relevant and how they apply here. You can't just throw out five acronyms in every post with no explanation. That's not an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO keeps going on about "UNDUE denigration" of the ASD and William Kristol. Kristol is known primarily as a neoconservative political commentator. He describes himself as "neoconservative," and that's how an endless number of reliable sources describe him. He's not primarily known as a Republican. As for "UNDUE," I'm going to remind SPECIFICO of the rule above: don't cite policy acronyms unless you actually explain how they're relevant. It's sort of ridiculous to try to talk with someone who responds to actual arguments with "UNDUE, SYNTHy, derogatory, POV, BLP!" -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion above, by user:Thucydides411, user:Wingwraith, and user:SPECIFICO, I have restored the paragraph.

(1) This article violates WP:NPOV, because it is written like a press release and contains no criticism of the Alliance for Security Democracy. Greenwald's comments are a clear case of WP:NPOV. If SPECIFICIO doesn't like Greenwald's comments, I would invite him to provide a better criticism of the Alliance. Until he has brought the entry into his idea of compliance with WP:NPOV, I don't think he has a right to delete all criticism.

(2) The fact that SPECIFICO thinks Greenwald's charges are "smears," ad hominem, denigration, biased or unfavorable is irrelevant under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." So we do put "denigration" of an organization into its article. We are required to do so under WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE.

(3) I disagree with SPECIFICO's claim that Greenwald's comment is WP:SYNTH, and I can't identify a logical argument there. Greenwald is directly commenting on the Alliance. Nobody is synthesizing two sources.

(4) Greenwald is a recognized expert on foreign affairs, with many books and periodical publications. Even if The Intercept was his personal blog, it would still be a WP:RS. WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

(5) There is no WP:BLP issue here. The Alliance for Securing Democracy is not a living person.

(6) There seems to be a consensus on the Talk page for including the paragraph. A majority of editors favor it, but consensus isn't a vote. Consensus is raising objections to content and answering those objections with reasons based on WP policies and guidelines. I believe that Thucydides411 and Wingwraith have given good reasons for keeping it in. SPECIFICO has given reasons for deleting it, but I don't think they hold up. Therefore we have consensus for keeping it in. Therefore, the burden of proof is now on SPECIFICO if he wants to delete it, and he hasn't met that burden. Therefore, I'm restoring it. --Nbauman (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from Columbia Journalism Review that cites Greenwald to support its own view. So it's definitely not a fringe view. You can't get much more authoritative than CJR:

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/russian-trolls.php

The media today: Are Russian trolls behind everything?

By Mathew Ingram

February 21, 2018

"According to The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald, the Alliance and the Fund are backed by notorious right-wing warmongers such as Bill Kristol and Mike Chertoff, and therefore their conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt."

--Nbauman (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that sounds neutral. "Warmongers".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be neutral: see WP:BIASED. You really should know this by know, considering you've been on Wikipedia since 2005. ^Falling_Gravity 06:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Greenwald himself overall is UNDUE here, but pinning (undeserved) labels on him is both POV and BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has any editor researched Homeland preparedness news? I found it when searching for the Miniature Hit-to-Kill missile. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the GMF and ASD uniquely privileged by some deity to tell us what the "truth" is about any issue in International Politics? Clearly, the answer is no. The controversies surrounding ASD and the GMF belong in a criticism section on the article itself, and not in fights in the talk page. The absence of such a section renders the article hagiographic and too deferential to an outfit that has not been free of distortion, bias and frankly in some case contested and discredited truth claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.135 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism sections" are not good practice on Wikipedia. If there have been noteworthy comments on ASD's work by notable individuals, published by independent publications, you may present suggestions here on the talk page. The Intercept has been rejected because the comments there are nothing more substantial than ad hominem denigration of individuals associated with ASD and are from a fringe source in his own publication. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That characterization of The Intercept is completely wrong. The Intercept is a reliable source for news, and there are a number of particularly well-known commentators who write opinion pieces there. It's not self-published, and it's not fringe. Greenwald has written very critically about the ASD and prominent people involved in it. Calling that criticism "denigration" does not mean it's not appropriate for this Wikipedia article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is only your personal POV and does not reflect mainstream evaluation of the Intercept or WP policy-based RS standards. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for the above. Point to a thread on WP:RSN where The Intercept is found to be unreliable. It's a professional journalistic organization with editorial staff who previously had significant positions at major newspapers; which has shown that it has a policy of corrections and retractions, when appropriate; and which has writers on staff whose reporting on the NSA and Bush's warrantless wiretapping program earned a Pulitzer Prize. If you want to argue that it's not a reliable source, you're free to go to WP:RSN and argue that case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about "bush's warrantless etc." The onus is on you. Go to RSN if you wish. It's self-sourced ad hominem by Greenwald who is fringe on a whole range of subjects that appear to irk him. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed this article was about Bush's warrantless wiretapping. You claimed that The Intercept is not a reliable source, and I pointed out a number of reasons why it is one, including the strength of its writing and editorial staff, and its demonstrated policy of correcting mistakes. The onus is not on me to ask WP:RSN if The Intercept is a reliable source. It manifestly is, and if you disagree, the onus is on you to go to WP:RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publications are not "RS" -- citations are RS for article content. Please read WP:RS and WP:V, including [WP:ONUS]] before commenting further. ~~`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear what I meant about the Intercept being a reliable source - you're just quibbling with my not being as detailed as you would like (obviously, "it's an RS source" has the usual caveats). If you want to rule out The Intercept in general as a source on Wikipedia, then go to WP:RSN and make the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article from CJR [1] makes or relates several criticisms of ASD/Hamilton68 which I don't see reflected in the article:

• The Russia-focused news site Meduza notes Hamilton68 won’t disclose which accounts it follows
• These reports were also based in part on conclusions by Hamilton68, which Newsweek said called the anti-Franken campaign “officially a Russian intelligence operation” (Hamilton68 later said that it did no such thing) ... Newsweek and Raw Story both later unpublished their stories.

CJR is a generally reliable source. Are there reasons we should not expand the use of this article? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to expand on Greenwald's Intercept article.[2] Currently it is used for the text "Glenn Greenwald reported that advisory council member William Kristol and staffer Jamie Fly have previously cooperated on neoconservative causes" which is factual and neutral but not a comprehensive representation of his argument. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the hisory of the article and talk pages before coming here with an itchy trigger finger. Greenwald is basically a fringe self-published writer who's been pretty much ignored for years by the world at large. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to focus your comments on content. Although not perfect CJR does not typically publicize the concerns of "fringe self-published writer[s]" uncritically, so your position on Greenwald is at odds with theirs which I'm inclined to favor. Do you have any objections to expanding our use of the CJR source? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the CJR secondary source is not the ad hominem smears. Who knows, maybe you'll put in a bit of effort and come up with valid article content from that secondary source? SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opening post in this section (see above) I identified two comments from the CJR piece I would like to include. Do you consider either an "ad hominem smear"? If not I will proceed with paraphrasing. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia policy against including criticisms of the leadership of an organization? I've never heard of "ad hominem smear" being used as a reason for excluding criticism of an organization on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article include or exclude criticism of ASD made by Glenn Greenwald? The proposed text is "Journalist Glenn Greenwald criticized the ASD, calling it 'the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials, and the world's most militant, militaristic, neocons.'," sourced to The Intercept and Columbia Journalism Review. ^Falling_Gravity 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Include. Greenwald is a notable pundit, and his views are not dismissed as "fringe" in the secondary source article from CJR. However, I believe this belongs in a section titled "Reception", as WP:Criticism sections are generally best avoided because they can become weighted toward only negative reactions. That way, if one finds sources praising ASD, those could also be added for balance. ^Falling_Gravity 07:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Include Greenwald's commentary, and more generally, the commentary in the CJR. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Include Taibbi and Greenwald are both respected award-winning journalists (Greenwald even won a prestigious Polk award as well as a Pulitzer prize). To smear them as "fringe" is absurd and the fact that other editors here are claiming they are "fringe" just proves that they have an agenda. PZP-003 (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC) I have a concern/question about this "survey" - how long does it usually take before the survey concludes? My concern is that this is being used as a tactic by clearly biased editors (who unfortunately seem abundant on any article related to Donald Trump) to keep reliably sourced accurate information from being added to Wikipedia articles.[reply]

The correct statement is that Greenwald USED TO BE a respected journalist. He's definitely become fringe since then and is busy pusjhing conspiracy theories.[3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so other users know, the article Volunteer Marek linked to is written by a strident critic of Greenwald, as well as liberal hawk....so it should be taken with a BIG grain of salt. PZP-003 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - While Greenwald is a respected journalist, this does not meet WP:WEIGHT and would tend to skew neutral point of view. My rule of thumb for including such quoted opinions is that at least two or three reliable third-party sources take note of it. CJR does not mention the proposed opinion at all.- MrX 🖋 13:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a third source which criticizes the ASD:https://www.thenation.com/article/our-russia-fixation-is-devolving-into-an-assault-on-political-discourse ... But I guess The Nation will be considered "fringe" or "conspiracy" now by some of the other users here. PZP-003 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Greenwald is a one-hit wonder, an angry misfit whose recent work does not reflect thoughtful mainstream commentary. Thus it's WP:UNDUE. His organ, the Intercept, is a concoction he cobbled funding for to promote his own work and POV essays. Thus its cherrypicked WP:PRIMARY. His flip disparagement of career national security professionals has nothing to do with ASD, its mission, its actions, its methods, etc. Thus it's WP:BLP-smearing and off-topic for this article, which is about ASD, not whether GG admires government servants or US national defense. The Columbia Journalism Review bit is the barest off-hand mention of GG absurdly calling folks "notorious right wing war-mongers" in a long CJR article that is not about the subject of ASD or its program. Thus it fails WP:NPOV Greenwald has approximately no credibility in current-day discourse. He was an early denier of the Russian interference in the American Politics, and rather than correct his earlier nonsense attacks on US intelligence and law enforcement, he's been doubling down with desperate, off-topic personal attacks on long-serving US Government professionals as if they were going to replay the attack on Saddam next Tuesday. There is plenty to say about this organization and there will be plenty of reasoned evaluation of its work and its methods and credibility. We don't dive for dirt from a fringe commentator. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that Taibbi is on the table here, but for the record he is beneath contempt and his opinions are meaningless. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO and Volunteer Marek seem real objective here, labeling well-respected mainstream award-winning journalists like Taibbi and Greenwald as "beneath contempt" and "fringe conspiracy theorists". Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. Also, if you have to go back 20+ years to when Taibbi wrote for the eXile, that's not a good sign. Besides, Taibbi has apologized for what he wrote back then and said it was a mistake. PZP-003 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, cut it out with the personal attacks. Second, whether they're "well-respected" and "mainstream" is precisely what we're discussing here. If you're going to label anyone who disagrees with you as "not objective" by default then there's no point in discussion since you're engaged in circular logic. (And as far Taibbi is concerned, he wrote for the eXile 20 years, ago but his book came out in, what, 2016? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also to the point as to "dated" references is the entire body of discredited The Nation denialist nonsense that claimed that the Russian hack was an inside caper at DNC headquarters. With a dozen Russians indicted and loads of evidence about social media disruption now public, that is a boomerang "criticism" (such as it was) about ASD. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, when you stop lying and making personal attacks on me and other users I will treat you with the same respect. Second, when label anyone who disagrees with you as "not objective" or "fringe" or "beneath contempt" then by default then there's no point in discussion since you're engaged in circular logic. Third, you are obfuscating the facts once again: Taibbi wrote the eXile book in the late 90s and it was published in 2000 (like I said almost 20 years ago) PZP-003 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - yes, these are fringe views from a guy who was ONCE a respected journalists before shredding his own credibility (Greenwald, see link above) and a guy who was always fringe (when was Taibbi suppose to be "respected" exactly? When he wrote denigrating and misogynistic crap about women in the fringe publication the eXile [4]?). Even if these weren't fringe, they'd still be cherry picked. Overall this is a very clear attempt to POV the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless balancing material is added as part of a coherent whole (along the lines of FallingGravity's suggestion of a "Reception" section). I'm fine with saying "A, B, and C have praised the group, saying ______, while Y and Z has criticized it, saying _______." But I'm not OK with cherry-picking two critical views. (Especially Taibbi's.) Neutrality^talk 14:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: Do you have any sources that praise ASD? I tried looking for them, but couldn't find them. I did find a lot of sources that cite the Hamilton 68 dashboard, although many of those noted they do not reveal which accounts they follow. ^Falling_Gravity 17:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many cite the ASD's projects, and this column is quite positive. Neutrality^talk 17:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Include - Greenwald is not fringe; ridiculous. DoubleCross (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Just curious what is this "threaded discussion" section for?? It's been empty now for a while. PZP-003 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]