→Twitter's internal analysis: removed |
|||
Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
: Agreed. [[User:Casprings|Casprings]] ([[User talk:Casprings|talk]]) 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
: Agreed. [[User:Casprings|Casprings]] ([[User talk:Casprings|talk]]) 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
::OK, I've removed it for now. It's easy enough to put back in if consensus turns.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
::OK, I've removed it for now. It's easy enough to put back in if consensus turns.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Of course RS are increasingly telling us that the distinction between "Russian" and "American" is somewhat less clear than it was 2-3 years back. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 18:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:40, 1 February 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)
- Oppose.
- As TheTimesAreAChanging pointed out, the actual text that at least some people want to include is more specific than just saying that Russian bots are involved.
- Although there are sources which say that Russian bots are involved, the sources don't say that Russian bots are a significant portion of why the campaign has spread. In fact, the sources are being literally accurate but misleading--they stress that the Russian bots are exerting a lot of effort, trying to imply that they contribute significantly, but they don't say so. As such, although it would technically be okay to use such sources, we would have to be careful not to imply more than those sources are literally saying, and I feel that the intent of this poll is not to be so careful. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes No for 1 and 2 respectively. Widely reported by RS. The topic is broader however. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, No per reliable sources. And please stop trying to change and remove the text DURING an ongoing RfC - that's clearly disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:41, 1 February 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)
- WaPo is reporting that Trump sought to #ReleaseTheMemo. FallingGravity 18:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's no way that the President can unilaterally declassify House documents, although he could theoretically declassify much of the underlying evidence from FBI/DOJ. (That said, if Trump did so, he might be accused of corruptly interfering with the investigation...)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- WaPo is reporting that Trump sought to #ReleaseTheMemo. FallingGravity 18:02, 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
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)
- The cited sources say "may have". And they acknowledge the group reporting the allegation. It is not a fact and should not reported as one. We should note what the reliable sources say. I tried to fix it many times, most recently due to a glitch or perhaps I was working from an older article version(?) a bunch of other changes were made too. That was unfortunate. When we make allegations it's inportant to make clear that they are accusations and who has made them, jist as the reliable sources have done. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- The Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post treats it as a fact. We need to see how the most reputable sources treat this information, not simply chose an oddball one that happens to be cited in the article.. While the actual impact that Russian bots had is debatable, I'm not seeing any sources that say they didn't have a role. If something is uncontested and most source do not attribute it, neither should we.
- From WP:WikiVoice: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability."- MrX 🖋 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mr. X can you please link to the article you're referencing? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have referenced several articles in this thread. Which one are you referring to?- MrX 🖋 20:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
"Analysts have also found Russian bots have amplified a #ReleaseTheMemo campaign on social media."
- I can't find that text in the source. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)- WaPo updated their article. I have no idea why they omitted that sentence. If you Google search for that sentence you will see in in the snippet.- MrX 🖋 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- lol. It's at the name of the header for this section. Seriously, you just proved it. WaPo dropped it in a correction. --DHeyward (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not following you. Where exactly does it say that they dropped it in correction?- MrX 🖋 23:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- What part of the WaPo story that dropped it was causing a comprehension problem? It was removed in a corrected version and it says "this post has been updated." You understand it was removed right? --DHeyward (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Updated≠corrected.You did say "dropped it in a correction". Perhaps you need to correct that?- MrX 🖋 23:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mr X, "The FBI just gave us another reason to be skeptical of the GOP memo criticizing the bureau" is an opinion piece written by Amber Phillips and based almost entirely on official statements by the DOJ/FBI and by former FBI officials—not hard news reporting in The Washington Post! Furthermore, the opinion piece appears to have been updated and corrected several times, including:
"Correction: An early post incorrectly said the dossier was funded by a conservative website. That website has said none of the research it paid for eventually ended up in the dossier."
Phillips's opinion article no longer contains any reference to Russian bots. That you cited her (since-retracted) opinion to claim"The Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post treats it as a fact"
is completely unconvincing. No reliable source has stated that"Russian bots promoted the hashtag"
in its own voice and without attribution, period; if any did, you wouldn't have had to use Phillips.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- What part of the WaPo story that dropped it was causing a comprehension problem? It was removed in a corrected version and it says "this post has been updated." You understand it was removed right? --DHeyward (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not following you. Where exactly does it say that they dropped it in correction?- MrX 🖋 23:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- lol. It's at the name of the header for this section. Seriously, you just proved it. WaPo dropped it in a correction. --DHeyward (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- WaPo updated their article. I have no idea why they omitted that sentence. If you Google search for that sentence you will see in in the snippet.- MrX 🖋 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have referenced several articles in this thread. Which one are you referring to?- MrX 🖋 20:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Another source:
"What's remarkable about this meme isn't the fact that it's being spread far and wide – it's how much it's dominated Twitter these last two days, with so many other banner headlines in the news. The Hamilton 68 Dashboard, a project of the German Marshall Fund of the United States which tracks more than 500 Russia-influenced Twitter accounts to gauge the reach of disinformation campaigns, shows a massive surge behind the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag in the last 48 hours, led by the usual mix of right-wing platforms like Breitbart, Fox News, and The Gateway Pundit – along with Russian bots and state media outlets like Tass, RT, and Sputnik."
— Rolling Stone- - MrX 🖋 00:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Again, it's also not comparative. Horton heard a lot of things too but it doesn't make them loud or a significant source of noise. That is why the Russian bot angle has faded to a one day news story that is no longer encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- You started this discussion claiming "Most recent sources have dropped the reference to Russian bots entirely". I've proven that to be entirely false, and now the goalposts seem to be moving. Oh, and if you're going to allude to a well-known children's story in your argument, you might want to remember how the story actually ends.- MrX 🖋 12:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Again, it's also not comparative. Horton heard a lot of things too but it doesn't make them loud or a significant source of noise. That is why the Russian bot angle has faded to a one day news story that is no longer encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- First paragraph WaPo:
lawmakers on Wednesday chastised Facebook and Twitter for failing to explain the role pro-Russian accounts played in a large online campaign to release a classified memo related to the Russia investigation.
so if the role is unexplained, why are saying it had any impact? --DHeyward (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- You're parsing it wrong. Hamilton 68 presented evidence of the bot campaign, which several sources accept as factual. The impact is unknown, and probably unknowable. Separately, lawmakers (and citizen's like me!) want to know why Facebook and Twitter repeatedly allow their platforms to be co-opted by the Russian government to interfere in the affairs of the United States. This is not that complicated.- MrX 🖋 00:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, you are parsing it wrong. Not even Hamilton 68 has stated the bot campaign significantly affected social media. They stated it was significant bot activity but not that the bot activity significantly affected Twitter or social media. It's the noise generated by Who's in Horton Hears a Who!. Without that connection, the story died as being insignificant to the HSCI memo. That's apparent by the lack of legs the story had. The question is why do Russian bots still exist on Twitter/Facebook and what are they doing about it, but that question is unrelated to the HSCI memo. --DHeyward (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- None of Mr. X's sources state that Russian bots promoted the hashtag on Twitter. Rather, they state that Schiff and Feinstein are pressuring Twitter (and Facebook, too, for some reason, even though ASD doesn't track Facebook) to find some "evidence" to "confirm" ASD's arbitrary assertions. The tech companies will probably cave to government power eventually, just as they caved on "Russian" "interference" during the 2016 election—Twitter is now emailing hundreds of thousands of users to warn them that they may have "liked" a Russian tweet, even though less than "0.02 percent of the election-related tweets" came from Russian accounts, and Russian activity on social media was just as critical of Trump as of Hillary, with no evidence of a sophisticated Russian conspiracy to elect one candidate over another—but until that happens and Wikipedia can state that Twitter et al. "independently corroborated" this McCarthyist exercise, we have to use the language used by RS. Every single RS attributes the "Russian bots" angle to ASD, often with qualifiers like "alleged Russian manipulation ... The hashtag was allegedly boosted by a Russian bot campaign."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- You're parsing it wrong. Hamilton 68 presented evidence of the bot campaign, which several sources accept as factual. The impact is unknown, and probably unknowable. Separately, lawmakers (and citizen's like me!) want to know why Facebook and Twitter repeatedly allow their platforms to be co-opted by the Russian government to interfere in the affairs of the United States. This is not that complicated.- MrX 🖋 00:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- First paragraph WaPo:
"Twitter said that an initial inquiry had not identified “any significant activity connected to Russia”. Mr. X please stop including allegations as fact. The "disregarded" bit is also not in the sources cited and is false and misleading. The sources clearly state that there "may" have been involvement from Russian bot and that this analyst firm found that. We should stsy consistent with their reporting and not go beyond it. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Take it easy. Different sources say different things. Some sources say may; some say alleged; some say did. I have no idea what you mean by "the disregarded bit".- MrX 🖋 02:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- These social media websites are all under scrutiny. We don't accept their self-interested statements over RS reporting. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- And RS's has stopped reporting it as relating to the HCSI memo. WP:NOTNEWS] and WP:TOPIC mean it should be removed as unrelated to this article. It's a different issue and wasn't a lasting connection to this article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, it's still relevant. All that's happened is that the attention has moved on from the release the memo campaign to the memo itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- And RS's has stopped reporting it as relating to the HCSI memo. WP:NOTNEWS] and WP:TOPIC mean it should be removed as unrelated to this article. It's a different issue and wasn't a lasting connection to this article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- These social media websites are all under scrutiny. We don't accept their self-interested statements over RS reporting. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Get rid of it. At this point it is WP:FART. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 1 February 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)
- Also:[20] O3000 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hot stuff POTUS [21] SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's notable that the FBI has stopped alleging exposure of "methods and sources" (what is required for clearance) to "out of context" argument which is not a national security issue. --DHeyward (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2018
Eliminate the sentence "Russian-linked bots on Twitter helped spread the hashtag.[3][4][5]" in the first paragraph. References 3, 4, and 5 point to "Hamilton68", an organization that claims (without verification) that it has identified Russian-linked twitter and facebook accounts. It further claims, without verification, that the relatively normal content of these accounts was somehow anti-American. There has been no objective evidence set in the public domain that supports "Hamilton68" as a credible source, only "Hamilton68" self-assertions. The sentence is without verified merit and is therefore reckless in Wikipedia. Pongo1978 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not done - This is already being discussed elsewhere on this page. Feel free to make you views known there.- MrX 🖋 23:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reject. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Peter Strzok
Interesting article. This belongs somewhere. Maybe more than one somewhere if confirmed by more RS.[22] O3000 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Is there a connection to this memo?
- It's pretty wild that Trump can thank both Strzok and Comey for ensuring he won. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Some sources
Some may already be used, but some aren't:
- The Real Aim of the Nunes Memo Is the Mueller Investigation[1]
- Rosenstein stood up to the Nunes menace. Now it’s Republicans’ turn.[2]
- Release the Memo: What's the Conspiracy Behind the Right-Wing Meme?[3]
- Democrats' rebuttal memo knocks Nunes[4]
- FBI Director Opposes Memo Release Because of Inaccuracies, Source Says[5]
Reference formatting, ready-for-use, provided. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Savage, Charlie (January 29, 2018). "The Real Aim of the Nunes Memo Is the Mueller Investigation". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2018.
- ^ Rubin, Jennifer (January 31, 2018). "Rosenstein stood up to the Nunes menace. Now it's Republicans' turn". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 1, 2018.
- ^ Moser, Bob (January 19, 2018). "Release the Memo: What's the Conspiracy Behind the Right-Wing Meme?". Rolling Stone. Retrieved February 1, 2018.
- ^ Herb, Jeremy; Raju, Manu (January 31, 2018). "Democrats' rebuttal memo knocks Nunes". CNN. Retrieved February 1, 2018.
- ^ Strohm, Chris; House, Billy; Sink, Justin (January 31, 2018). "FBI Director Opposes Memo Release Because of Inaccuracies, Source Says". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved February 1, 2018.
both memos
DHeyward, please stop adding - repeatedly - text which is not supported by the source [23]. The source says that the vote to release Nunes memo was along party lines. The source says the panel rejected (also along party lines) making the Shiff memo public. The source does say "The committee did vote to allow the full House to read Schiff's memo" - but it does not say anything about who voted how.
You've done this twice now. It's becoming disruptive. Either find a source which actually supports the statement or just stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is also the confusion between voting to release to the public or just to the full house. The old wording conflated them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Twitter's internal analysis
I tagged the following sentence in the 'Spread on social media' section as possibly undue:
- "According to Twitter, although a large number of Russian accounts were also involved, they were insufficient to reach the top of Twitter's internal analysis which showed the retweets are coming from inside the United States from authentic American accounts."[24]
This is only sourced to The Daily Beast, without attribution, based on an anonymous source. I would suggest that we remove this sentence unless someone can show that it is backed by at least a couple of additional sources or that other sources cite the Daily Beast article..- MrX 🖋 16:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Casprings (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed it for now. It's easy enough to put back in if consensus turns.- MrX 🖋 17:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of course RS are increasingly telling us that the distinction between "Russian" and "American" is somewhat less clear than it was 2-3 years back. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)