Wikipedia

Talk:William Binney (U.S. intelligence official)/Archive 1

< Talk:William Binney (U.S. intelligence official)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by FrankP in topic Secret Memo -- proposal to archive this section of Talk

Biography

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article states that Binney received his Bachelor's degree in 1970. But then it goes on to say that he was in the Army from 1965-1969 and joined the NSA in 1970, so the year given for his graduation from college must be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.208.124 (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about the same thing. Could he have worked on his degree while in the Army? The only other way to find out for sure is to ask him.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Military (and intelligence and technical) people often have non-standard educational and career trajectories. One can indeed be in the military and attending university, for example. The source for that information is Binney himself in the resume included in his affidavit for Jewel v. NSA. Evolauxia (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Archives of video presentation " The Government is Profiling You" and associated files

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To ensure these works are not lost to time, I am going to do an archive of "The Government is Profiling You" and the associated files:

The related Wired articles:

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

external link

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

P2Peter, your edit today The Future of Freedom: A Feature Interview with NSA Whistleblower William Binney misses a date. Can you add?

Is subscription required ? It didnt work for me.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a date, that is to say month and year, as it's on a website that thinks it's hip and trendy to not have exact dates anymore, but just that "[...] ago". The video works fine for me. Greetings, P2Peter (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Reddit AMA

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The fact that he did an AMA on Reddit doesn't seem to me to be significant enough to be mentioned unless something comes out of it (e.g. if it's discussed in the press afterwards, or some new revelation was made there), so I've reverted it. --Slashme (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Trump, CIA Director meeting at Trump Request

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Time for expansion. --Wikipietime (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A Bit minimal for highlight of BLP;

"Binney has said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election is false, and that the DNC e-mails were leaked by an insider instead.[19][20][21] He has appeared on Fox News at least ten times between September 2016 and November 2017 to promote his theory.[19][20] Binney said that the "intelligence community wasn’t being honest here".[19] In November 2017, Binney met with CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the behest of President Trump.[19]

battle of editors on this topic...

--Wikipietime (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The Nation Magazine also published the article back in July. Not just Breitbart. Allanana79 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Secret Memo -- proposal to archive this section of Talk

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Criticisms are based on behaviors, and LocalMM is appealing to 'his' own sense of argument ad verecundiam. You have to admit, blanket edit roll backs because of a 'source' that isn't 'ok to him?' By wikipedia standard, it is allowed. So the editor needs to please review beginning sourcing and vitiation guidelines. This is a reasonable request any rational person would respect.

Sure, we could (and move on from the original issue) if LocalMediaMonitor continues to improve their understanding of sourcing, quality of sourcing, and their understanding.. Sources were cited when they did not contain words quote, nor were they supportive in any other way. That source removal was constantly reverted by "LocalMediaMonitor" (who?). This was a constant edit war by revert. Included several violations of Wikipedia standards, including not limited to: WP:BADSOURCING, WP:NOT_UNDERTSTANDING_RELIABLE_SOURCES, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and violation of WP:PILLAR2 WP:PILLAR4, all culminating in WP:GAMING_THE_SYSTEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantspantsly (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The comment above seems not to contain any identifiable proposal about content for the page. I note that the Talk page guidelines exhort: No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace. FrankP (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


I propose that this section of Talk be archived, as it consists almost entirely of unsigned ad hominem comments which do not explain what is at issue in this edit dispute. I suggest starting again by opening a new section called "Infowars and the House Committee memo" where arguments might be presented for how this part of the article ought to be written. FrankP (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

An unregistered user (Mr Binney?) keeps deleting this entire section. Can other Wiki editors please weigh in on it. Though the section may need fine-tuning, it seems to legitimately belong as a highly-relevant incident dealing with a major news issue. I think this may be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT whitewashing. Calling Snooganssnoogans 

Localemediamonitor (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Localemediamonitor: Why no primary sources when they are readily available?

LocalMediaMonitor: "Please explain why content sourced to six reliable sources (now also CNN and WaPo)." These are HARDLY reliable sources. In fact, unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantspantsly (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions to the Talk page. Makes it a lot easier for someone coming to the page to tell what's going on. Thanks FrankP (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you[who?] attempted to use bad sources. I[who?] am merely correcting the record to be accurate. You[who?] may think that, but you are not allowing the reality of the situation to be explained. That's fine, your[who?] choice.

Pantspantsly : Please stop the edit war. Your edit was really bad--primary sourcing and de facto original reporting, as you are attempting to do with your edits and links, are not allowed on Wikipedia. PLEASE, read the Wikipedia guidelines, make no more changes, and let other editors (besides you and I) weigh in and decide on whatever changes are necessary now.

You[who?] are the war-monger. Please stop reverting entire edit. Please try and reconcile your 'viewpoint,' sources, and facts as reported

BTW You're in danger of getting blocked by Wikipedia for edit-warring, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pantspantsly ...best regards, Localemediamonitor (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I[who?] look forward to your continued knee bending like your original bad source (that you changed) what other bad sources are you[who?] using on wikipedia?

Reverted to version by David notMD. "Infowars.com" is not considered as a legit source on Wikipedia. Try not to get personal. Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect here, and projecting the 'personal' aspect from your own mind. It is referring to itself and the event, which is the subject of the section. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantspantsly (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Either remove the section, or let the source stay.


Adding from LMM talk page: Please allow the article and section discussed below to EVOLVE and GROW in a forward direction.

You[who?] admitted your original sourcing was bad, because you changed it. Now, the words written do not match the reported sourcing.

Now you[who?] are experiencing WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT because whitewashing.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met.

You keep removing reference to a mainstream news source that any reasonable person in 2018 would trust, LET ALONE a non-exceptional claim, not about third party, no reasonable doubt, unrelated events, or primary sources. It is literally the date that he appeared.

You need to re-read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper)

I am also accusing you of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system which violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose Pillar 2, you are not behaving neutral Pillar 4, you started an edit was with me.

The 'war' can end, but you fired the first shots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)/Archive_1&oldid=827125121"