Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Revision as of 05:02, 10 May 2017 edit JFG (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 53,863 edits →‎Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE: Notability of the journalist is not required to cite him as a WP:RS ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:46, 10 May 2017 edit undo Adlerschloß (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 738 edits →‎Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE Next edit →
Line 655: * '''DUE'''. Ars Technica is an excellent source and Goodin is a well-known security journalist. An anecdotal aside here, years ago in San Francisco I was recommended to seek employment at Ars, and Goodin was the person I was actually supposed to speak with. That ended up not happening; but I can note that the person who referred me to Goodin was a keynote speaker at multiple computer security conferences, and was nominated for multiple Pwnie awards over the years (receiving an honourable mention at one, which is actually mentioned in our Wikipedia article on the subject). Goodin regularly attends the Baysec computer security professionals meetup in San Francisco which is one the most elite such gatherings in the entire world (and I'm sure "Russiagate" has been extensively discussed there), basically he can in no way be derogated as "fringe" in contexts of the industry. [[User:Adlerschloß\|Adlerschloß]] ([[User talk:Adlerschloß\|talk]]) 13:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ::Let me get this straight. You showed up for a job interview and didn't meet Mr. Goodin therefore the non-NOTABLE Mr. Goodin whom you didn't meet should be quoted in this WP article? And you say you've heard that Mr. Goodin hangs out at an open meetup called [https://www.baysec.net/ '''Baysec''']? [[User:SPECIFICO \|<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO \| ''talk'']] 18:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ::You are mischaracterising my recounting. My point was that Goodin was held in very high regard by one of the leading reverse engineers in the world. Regarding Baysec, attending regularly for years would entail Goodin communicating often with globally-leading information security experts, from both the private and public sector, in an informal setting in which everyone is "saying what they really think." I am sure "Russiagate" and evidence regarding that narrative (or lack thereof) were substantively discussed. Any source that contradicts a narrative that is being strangely and anomalously pushed on en.wiki through pointing out the obvious, namely that none of this has been proved and almost no evidence has been offered to substantiate the allegations, is being maligned and dragged through the mud, called "fringe", as occurred with Jeffrey Carr. The point is, I happen to personally know that Goodin is not regarded as fringe by anyone whose expertise would be relevant in this context. It is bizarre and confusing why anyone confident of their own assessment on this matter would be working so hard to keep sources out of the article that display what is, again, the obvious: that there is no technical proof justifying the US intelligence assessment of this. Generally those confident about their own viewpoint do not work to censor opposing arguments or evidence, and the repeated pattern of this here is suspicious itself (I feel rather agnostic on the specificity of accusations against Russia, but the behaviour of those wishing to depict that accusation as proved or universally accepted when it obviously isn't is suspicious enough to cast the accusations themselves in a new light for me). [[User:Adlerschloß\|Adlerschloß]] ([[User talk:Adlerschloß\|talk]]) 05:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC) * '''[[WP:DUE\|UNDUE]], [[WP:NN\|Not notable]]'''. Opinion of a writer at an online tech mag. I don’t see where he has any experience in counterespionage. [[User:Objective3000\|Objective3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000\|talk]]) 15:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC) :::{{re\|Objective3000}} What level of "experience in counterespionage" would you require a journalist to have before you would agree to quoting them in the article? I would have thought being the "Security Editor" for a well-respected technology publication, and a former cybersecurity journalist for major publications like Bloomberg, AP and The Register would be enough qualification. Does he have to be a former intelligence agent? I'm just trying to get a sense of what threshold you're setting before we can cite a journalist's work here. After you've set that level, perhaps we can go through the article and remove all the reporting by journalists who don't meet it (and since Goodin is probably one of the most expert journalists we cite, we'll most likely have to delete most of the journalistic sources in the article). -[[User:Thucydides411\|Thucydides411]] ([[User talk:Thucydides411\|talk]]) 01:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)