→Legality: new section |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
If the memo contains classified material and it is released, the act of release would be considered treason, punishable by death. — <span style="font-size:115%;background-color:lightyellow">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|G. ツ]]</span> 06:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC) |
If the memo contains classified material and it is released, the act of release would be considered treason, punishable by death. — <span style="font-size:115%;background-color:lightyellow">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|G. ツ]]</span> 06:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
:Um, no.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 06:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:44, 28 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)
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)
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)