Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
::::*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/30/why-you-should-be-skeptical-of-this-gop-memo-criticizing-the-fbi/ "Analysts have also found Russian bots have amplified a #ReleaseTheMemo campaign on social media."] |
::::*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/30/why-you-should-be-skeptical-of-this-gop-memo-criticizing-the-fbi/ "Analysts have also found Russian bots have amplified a #ReleaseTheMemo campaign on social media."] |
||
::::*[http://www.newsweek.com/trump-100-percent-release-memo-nunes-duncan-795996 "... Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), helped spearhead the #ReleaseTheMemo social media campaign—an initiative apparently boosted by Russian bots."] - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
::::*[http://www.newsweek.com/trump-100-percent-release-memo-nunes-duncan-795996 "... Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), helped spearhead the #ReleaseTheMemo social media campaign—an initiative apparently boosted by Russian bots."] - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::By the way, we should not be adding "According to [[Hamilton 68]], a project started by [[Clint Watts]],..." in front of this material. While it may be true, it is [[WP:UNDUE]] in that it inappropriately amplifies the importance of Hamilton 68's role. It may be OK as background detail, but it does not belong in the lead. Pinging {{u|FloridaArmy }} for any comments they may have.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Move to Nunes Memo== |
== Move to Nunes Memo== |
Revision as of 17:08, 31 January 2018
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ReleaseTheMemo is the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo
Shouldn't the title and description mention that this is a hashtag? Therefore the title should be ReleaseTheMemo (hashtag), just like Me Too (hashtag). -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes.Casprings (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer and Casprings: I disagree with this action. The disambiguation at Me Too (hashtag) is necessary to disambiguate from topics like Me Too (album) and Me Too (Meghan Trainor song). But we have no other articles called ReleaseTheMemo nor Release the Memo. Per WP:PRECISION,
Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that
. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer and Casprings: I disagree with this action. The disambiguation at Me Too (hashtag) is necessary to disambiguate from topics like Me Too (album) and Me Too (Meghan Trainor song). But we have no other articles called ReleaseTheMemo nor Release the Memo. Per WP:PRECISION,
Russian bots
Five of the ten sources currently in the article discuss Russian bots. Please stop trying to spuriously remove this info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- 1) Russian bots were already mentioned and 2) the main force behind the memo is the House Committee chairman and author. It doesn't belong in the first sentence. The memo itseld doesn't purport to have any connection to Russian interference in the election which is what the wikilink you added implies. --DHeyward (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- The first sentence is summarizing the rest of the article. I have no idea what a "main force" is. But this article isn't about the memo. It's about a hashtag. Is Nunes the "main force" behind the hashtag? No. And how do you know what the memo does or does not purport? You read it? Then release it please. Else stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is no public evidence that Russian bots promoted this hashtag. All of the sources that mention that claim attribute it to the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a think tank with ties to neoconservatism and the U.S. national security state, and which is by no means a reliable source. Twitter has found nothing to support ASD's claim. (ASD's "Hamilton 68" only monitors Twitter, not "social media" generally, as this article falsely implies.) ASD does not list any of the accounts that it considers Russian bots and has never explained its methodology, so there is no way to independently verify anything it says. The language Casprings and Volunteer Marek are fighting for is equivalent to Wikipedia repeating as fact allegations about the CIA made by a Kremlin-tied think tank. It's scarcely believable that this is what Wikipedia has become.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's according to one source. Which also says " according to this source, who would not speak to The Daily Beast for attribution". Other sources say otherwise [1]. Your original research about ASD is completely irrelevant. ASD is a perfectly reliable source, as are all the sources that are reporting about them in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, the ASD report is not even mentioned in the article. In fact, it needs to be added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- As stated, russian bots are mentioned. Ass stated in the second paragraph, per Twitter is they are not the originator nor highest volume. Second paragraph is appropriate place as bots are not the story and there is no connection of the document and Russia. American made about US DoJ and FISA courts. --DHeyward (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- (EC) No, all of the sources attribute this arbitrary assertion to ASD's "Hamilton 68." For example, the source you linked above (by a longtime CIA mouthpiece) states:
"'#Releasethememo' is now the top trending hashtag among Russian bots and trolls on Twitter and other platforms, according to the German Marshall Fund's 'Hamilton 68' website, which tracks Russian influence campaigns."
There is no reason for Wikipedia to eschew similar attribution. We would never in a million years repeat similar allegations against the U.S. in Wikipedia's voice—even though the U.S. uncontroversially has a history of foreign meddling that vastly dwarfs even Russia's—and that's what WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is all about.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC) - In addition, Newsweek makes it clear that the "Russian bot" angle is a Democrat talking point, not a fact.[2]. We are not the mouthpiece for reporting partisan rhetoric as fact. --DHeyward (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- You ever consider that it could be BOTH a "Democrat talking point" AND a fact? No? Maybe you should.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, but Twitter analysis disagreed so it's better as an attributed position which is how sources presented it. We attribute opinion which this clearly is. I agree with you that the attributed opinion should be included rather than complete removal that would occur if we only included "truth." --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I sort of doubt that "Twitter analysis" described it as a "Democratic talking point". Of course we can mention what Twitter claims, but we need to also mention other reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's why I never said that they did. But then again, no sources or analysis by anyone but democrats say this was a Russian-bot social media campaign. George takei blamed Russian bots for the #metoo campaign he got caught up in, but even if it was the top-trending Russian bot hashtag for awhile doesn't mean we attribute the #metoo campaign as "russian bot supported social media campaign." The #releaseTheDocuments hsshtag was top of Twitter with or without Russian bots. And if just Russian bots are counted, it did not trend on Twitter at all. That makes them immaterial to the media campaign except as something the Democrats mentioned and it should be treated as such. --DHeyward (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I sort of doubt that "Twitter analysis" described it as a "Democratic talking point". Of course we can mention what Twitter claims, but we need to also mention other reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, but Twitter analysis disagreed so it's better as an attributed position which is how sources presented it. We attribute opinion which this clearly is. I agree with you that the attributed opinion should be included rather than complete removal that would occur if we only included "truth." --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- You ever consider that it could be BOTH a "Democrat talking point" AND a fact? No? Maybe you should.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Similarly, CNN states:
"Software developed by the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy showed that #ReleaseTheMemo was one of the talking points being pushed most frequently on Thursday and throughout the weekend by a group of Twitter accounts it believes to be part of 'Russian-linked influence networks' on the platform. The group does not disclose which accounts it tracks and CNN has not independently verified its findings. ... It's not clear that any such analysis will show that Russians had anything to do with the hashtag's popularity, or even that bots did. The Daily Beast reported Tuesday that Twitter's internal analysis has "found that authentic American accounts, and not Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo." And a number of people with influence both on Twitter and in the media have promoted the campaign and the hashtag. ... Much of the hashtag's virality was due to legitimate, organic activity. Republican lawmakers, prominent conservative media figures and the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., all helped the hashtag trend with their own tweets. One tweet from Rep. Mark Meadows, who said he had read the memo and described it as 'shocking,' was retweeted almost 50,000 times. Media coverage also likely played a role as well."
None of the sources say anything close to Wikipedia's"According to an unnamed source familiar with an internal analysis by Twitter, the accounts promoting the hashtag were mostly American, although a large number of Russian accounts were also involved."
TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)- You, like, bolded exactly the wrong parts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- (EC) No, all of the sources attribute this arbitrary assertion to ASD's "Hamilton 68." For example, the source you linked above (by a longtime CIA mouthpiece) states:
- As stated, russian bots are mentioned. Ass stated in the second paragraph, per Twitter is they are not the originator nor highest volume. Second paragraph is appropriate place as bots are not the story and there is no connection of the document and Russia. American made about US DoJ and FISA courts. --DHeyward (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is no public evidence that Russian bots promoted this hashtag. All of the sources that mention that claim attribute it to the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a think tank with ties to neoconservatism and the U.S. national security state, and which is by no means a reliable source. Twitter has found nothing to support ASD's claim. (ASD's "Hamilton 68" only monitors Twitter, not "social media" generally, as this article falsely implies.) ASD does not list any of the accounts that it considers Russian bots and has never explained its methodology, so there is no way to independently verify anything it says. The language Casprings and Volunteer Marek are fighting for is equivalent to Wikipedia repeating as fact allegations about the CIA made by a Kremlin-tied think tank. It's scarcely believable that this is what Wikipedia has become.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- The first sentence is summarizing the rest of the article. I have no idea what a "main force" is. But this article isn't about the memo. It's about a hashtag. Is Nunes the "main force" behind the hashtag? No. And how do you know what the memo does or does not purport? You read it? Then release it please. Else stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Most sources describe it as Russian bot supported. That needs to be primary in the article.Casprings (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
American or Russia social media campaign
The article originally called this a "Russian supported social media campaign" [3]
Then an IP changed this to "American citizen" [4] in essentially a piece of vandalism
I added a dubious tag to that assertion, as it deserved one.
User:Neutrality changed it to "a social media campaign" without any nationalities in there [5]
User:DHeyward then added back the adjective "American" with the Daily Beast source [6] (this is the only source that calls this American. All other sources note the hashtag being pushed by Russian bots. Hence this is cherry picking undue info)
DHeyward also removed the part which said "supported by Russian bots", which was based on reliable sources.
DHeyward also added "Democrats blamed Russian bots for spreading the hashtag" which is true enough, but the placement of this claim in the article and the wording is obviously meant to imply that ONLY Democrats made this claim, whereas it was actually an independent assessment.
Then even more IP hijinks ensued.
So what started out as a source based neutral text gradually morphed, with the help from some fly by night accounts, into highly partisan POV text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with your version is that the reason it is trending and was notable was not because of Russian bots. No sources say say that Russian bots were responsible for either hashtags popularity or origin. It may be the most popular hashtag repeated by Russian bots, but that does not confer the reason why it's trending on Twitter. It could also be the most popular hashtag for blind, one-legged senior citizens but we would not categorize it as a "blind, one-legged senior citizen social media campaign." The analysis by twitter in the sources say 1) it's trending because of organically driven American accounts and 2) the contribution by Russian bots weren't significant in its trending. Being the top trending Russian bot hashtag is relatively meaningless unless it is driving the trend and the sources that mention Russian bots don't make the claim and the analysis by Twitter shows that it would be baseless to make the claim. It reads pretty neutrally without the false narrative that it's a Russian-bot social media campaign. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- "The problem with your version is that the reason it is trending and was notable was not because of Russian bots" - this is your own original research.
- "No sources say say that Russian bots were responsible for either hashtags popularity" - false, sources do say this.
- The analysis by twitter is just one source of information here. We also have independent evaluations of the phenomenon. Twitter's been - rightly - catching all kinds of shit for allowing itself to become a platform for various disinformation campaigns, so yeah, of course they're gonna deny it. This is why we use secondary sources.
- You - and a few IPs - changed the wording to say something completely the opposite of what it said. If you want to include the internal Twitter analysis as another view point, that's fine. But you can't just remove all the info based on sources that says something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'll be more specific. Neither the NBC source or CNN source make the claim that the reason it is trending and was notable. NBC notes that it was a top bot hashtag but not that being the top bot hashtag is a significant effect of Twitter trending topics. CNN is much more in-depth and specifically says they can make no connection from the bots to it's trending on Twitter. If you have other sources than the ones you provided, please place them here otherwise the influence of Russian bots is not established in any source and they are generally downplayed in all the reliable sources that analyzed them. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- The article currently says that it is supported by Russia. It makes no mention of how effective that support is.Casprings (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- If it's a not a prominent level of support, it doesn't belong in the most prominent spot describing it's support. It may also be the number trending hashtag of MENSA members but we would not describe it in the lead as a "MENSA-supported social media campaign." What makes it trend is what should be stated in the article, not a cherry picked group that is mentioned by partisans to make a partisan point. Organic American twitter accounts are the reason it's a notable social media campaign on Twitter, not Russian bots. --DHeyward (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Whether it's notable or not depends on whether sources discuss it. They do. Your original research is irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- If it's a not a prominent level of support, it doesn't belong in the most prominent spot describing it's support. It may also be the number trending hashtag of MENSA members but we would not describe it in the lead as a "MENSA-supported social media campaign." What makes it trend is what should be stated in the article, not a cherry picked group that is mentioned by partisans to make a partisan point. Organic American twitter accounts are the reason it's a notable social media campaign on Twitter, not Russian bots. --DHeyward (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- The article currently says that it is supported by Russia. It makes no mention of how effective that support is.Casprings (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'll be more specific. Neither the NBC source or CNN source make the claim that the reason it is trending and was notable. NBC notes that it was a top bot hashtag but not that being the top bot hashtag is a significant effect of Twitter trending topics. CNN is much more in-depth and specifically says they can make no connection from the bots to it's trending on Twitter. If you have other sources than the ones you provided, please place them here otherwise the influence of Russian bots is not established in any source and they are generally downplayed in all the reliable sources that analyzed them. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
RFC on Russian Bot Support
1. Should the article describe the media campaign as supported by Russian Bots? 2. If yes to number 1, should the Russian bot support for the campaign be in the first defining sentence of the article? Casprings (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Survey
Support Both Multiple sources make this connection. See:
- Russia-linked Twitter accounts are working overtime to help Devin Nunes and WikiLeaks
- In fight over Russia memo, Republicans have unusual ally
- Russian Trolls Found Amplifying U.S. Republican Charge Against FBI
As such, this is foundational to the article. External support from a state actor is what makes this campaign notable.Casprings (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pointlessly Vague an RFC without specific wording. This the Twitter version of Horton Hears a Who. All the Whoville bots are honking their donghonglers, but noting they are all honking is quite different than saying they are noisy and a significant source of noise. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Shouldn't we just follow what the sources are saying and attribute the Russian bots claim to the Alliance for Securing Democracy's Hamilton 68? This really shouldn't be that hard. FallingGravity 05:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's nothing vague about this. It simply means that the original, neutral version - "ReleaseTheMemo is a social media campaign supported by Russian bots" - that was there before a bunch of IPs and DHeyward monkeyed up the text to misrepresent the sources, should be restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion but needed better sourcesing before going in the lead. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 06:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Casprings's RfC is typically vague and malformed, but what he means is
"Should this article state that 'ReleaseTheMemo' is a Russian-sponsored social media campaign in the lead sentence and without attribution?"
Given that the sources all attribute that claim to ASD's "Hamilton," there is no reason for Wikipedia to eschew similar attribution.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC) - Comment - Instead of saying "Russian Bots" let's talk about, for instance, a "Russian disinformation campaign on social media" or similar, if we have the sources. This isn't really WP:NPOV, more WP:The_World's_Turning_Too_Fast_And_We're_Making_Up_Words_For_Stuff. We can do better. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 21:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion using the last stable version as mentioned above. "ReleaseTheMemo is a social media campaign supported by Russian bots" or "#ReleaseTheMemo is a Russian supported social media campaign" seems well-sourced, high profile enough to be in the lead given its prominence in the sources, and fairly uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support 1; Oppose 2 per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Extensive coverage in Newsweek, Bloomberg, NBC News, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, CNN, and so on. Now that the article is about the memo, this would not be a significant enough point to include in the lead sentence.- MrX 🖋 15:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Legality
If the memo contains classified material and it is released, the act of release would be considered treason, punishable by death. — Jeff G. ツ 06:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Um, no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- This seems like WP:NOTAFORUM. Nevertheless, the memo could probably be released in redacted form in some future date since so many Republican lawmakers apparently want to #ReleaseTheMemo. FallingGravity 07:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, all they have to do to release the memo is have the Republicans on the committee (you know, the dudes that actually wrote it) vote to declassify it, then if the president doesn't object for five days, they can release it wherever they like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- The president can also unilaterally declassify on his own if I am not mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Weight
It's important for divisive articles like this to not overly base the article on one source which may skew the article. Drawing from a wide variety of sources, and apportioning weight likewise, will lead to a better article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The bit you reverted is sourced to CNN regarding egg accounts.
- Here's the sources version
More than 1,000 accounts that were set up between Thursday -- when the hashtag first appeared -- and Sunday night have tweeted the hashtag. 460 of those were what are known as "egg accounts," accounts that don't even have a profile picture. CNN's analysis found that between Thursday and Sunday night, newly created accounts (which are not necessarily related to Russia or to any other state actor) tweeted or retweeted the hashtag more than 5,000 times -- a tiny fraction of the total number of tweets which included the hashtag
.[8] - Here's what you think is the weighted NPOV version.
According to an analysis by CNN the hashtag was pushed by over a thousand newly created accounts, of which 460 were "egg accounts" without even a profile picture.
[9] Notice all the weight and balance you removed? I left the "tiny fraction" of egg accounts sentence but it's clear they are overweighted and should be removed completely. --DHeyward (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Here's the sources version
New info on the contents of thr memo
Info here should be added. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ReleaseTheMemo
Most recent sources have dropped the reference to Russian bots entirely
Newsweek omitted all reference to bots in their latest story on the memo and hashtag. Replaced with Hannity and Trump Jr. [10]. If we follow the guideline on sources, most recent are deemed highest quality. Here's relevant quote about the hashtag: Those advocating for the release of the memo, written by California Republican Representative Devin Nunes, have pushed the trending Twitter hashtag #releasethememo for the cause. In addition to members of Congress, some of the greatest advocates for the document's release have been Fox News anchor Sean Hannity and the president's son, Donald Trump Jr.
Russian bot attribution has apparently evaporated under analysis. It should be moved down into a section documenting the notable Democratic response rather than anything more prominent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Has anyone WP:RS issued a retraction? If not, then nothing has changed.Casprings (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Here are recent sources that reference the Russian bots:[11][12][13].- MrX 🖋 13:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, we should not be adding "According to Hamilton 68, a project started by Clint Watts,..." in front of this material. While it may be true, it is WP:UNDUE in that it inappropriately amplifies the importance of Hamilton 68's role. It may be OK as background detail, but it does not belong in the lead. Pinging FloridaArmy for any comments they may have.- MrX 🖋 17:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Move to Nunes Memo
Given the memo will be released, I propose moving the article to the Nunes memo, keep the current content, but expand to coverage of the memo. Casprings (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Per my comment at the RfD.- MrX 🖋 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Well, if it's going to exist, it shouldn't be named after a Twitter hash tag. O3000 (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - A week ago, I would've said no. But given that more credible sources are confirming that such a memo actually exists, and how the social media campaign is only a backdrop to the actual news story (i.e. the memo), it makes sense to move this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enter Movie (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Bolded name in first sentence
Sorry, I hit Enter by accident before adding a summary for this edit. The memo isn't formally or widely known as the "Nunes memo," or for that matter as any other name; therefore we shouldn't include a bolded name. If the official name of the memo becomes known then it should be used instead. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- According to my research, "Nunes memo" is what the memo is frequently called in sources. It is also called "secret memo", but that's ambiguous. I think it's important to link the article subject to the lead, as opposed to starting the article as if telling a story. An encyclopedia lead should not start in a narrative style. - MrX 🖋 13:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Important add
FBI opposition and accurately of document.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-31/trump-says-100-percent-after-he-s-asked-to-release-gop-memo Casprings (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)