Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Mockingbird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Mockingbird

Operation Mockingbird (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is a Original Research synthesis of one book which poses the term Mockingbird, and actual historic events where the CIA covertly sponsored organization like Radio Free Europe. These latter events are never described in terms of "Operation Mockingbird," and thus, no such article should exist. Central_Intelligence_Agency#Cultural_activities already mentions these activities briefly, links to the Radio Free Europe and Forum World Features articles could be added there. Intangible2.0 23:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Note. A Google search for one reference in the article, Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation by Mary Louise, gives a top hit to prison planet, a well-known conspiracy site. I cannot find the origins of the article though. Intangible2.0 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This Google search for "Operation Mockingbird" CIA yields over 20,000 hits. Gwen Gale 14:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Search engine tests rarely prove anything about notability. I have yet to find a reliable source on the subject. Intangible2.0 23:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I never said a Google search demonstrates anything. Gwen Gale 23:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Why is it relevant that the book is mentioned on a well-known conspiracy site? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The article fails to appear at reliable sites. Intangible2.0 00:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the Meyer book or the Thomas book? If anything, they have many more citations. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither the Meyer book, nor the Thomas book affirm the notability of Operation Mockingbird. Basically what happens here is that a marginal source terms the article, which then gets constructed based on a OR synthesis of sources which are reliable. Intangible2.0 14:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's relevant because if a google search produces just a single mention at a loony conspiracy site it tends to indicate why this rag bag of conspiracy cruft is not notable. Nick mallory 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What google search only produces just a single mention? Can you provide a link please? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence of this? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter who the nominating editor is, only WP policy has any sway. Gwen Gale 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep (under 2i, "obviously frivolous nominations" also possibly 2iv, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion") For starters, if Nazi UFOs, an article of utter codswallop, gets an article on this public wiki, then this should too. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about citations, verifiable sources (WP:V) and WP:WEIGHT. The assertions themselves, true or not, are clearly notable and verifiable. However, assertions which are not verifiable in a published source may be removed. Moreover, spanned citations of more widely notable and published CIA activities shouldn't be conflated into the article, that's original research and can be rm'd. Editors with concerns about WP:NPOV are more than welcome to provide published criticism of assertions contained in the article according to WP:Reliable Sources. Gwen Gale 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just reading the article on WP:SEWAGE and WP:WAX. Nazi UFOs has not been up for a recent AFD. Though I follow the rest of your arguments. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, but my sloppily made point was, the truth of the assertion doesn't mean a wit, it's whether the assertion is published in a verifiable secondary source. Nazi UFOs hasn't been up for AfD because as wacky as the topic is, the wacky assertions are verifiable as having been made (oh and it was on my mind because I'd stumbled across it and done some cleanup on it earlier today, is all). So, if a reader hears about this flavour of "UFO" (a misnomer in itself but whatever) on TV or what have you, we have the article, which clearly presents the topic as a fiction. Dunno if Operation Mockingbird is fiction or not, doesn't matter, all we need do as editors is include verifiable, published assertions on both takes. Cheers! Gwen Gale 14:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Additional comment: Having now looked thoroughly at the text and sources of this article, while I agree it may contain some original research and cite spanning, over all I think the article cites more than sufficient sources to demonstrate not only a notable assertion of OM's existence, but support for assertions OM was indeed a US government operation as generally described. The article needs a lot of work though. Gwen Gale 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I now think this should be speedy kept. Gwen Gale 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep see my above comments. Remove the original research per arguments made by Gale. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Clearly a bad nomination. This is sourced, is not a "conspiracy theory," but rather an actual CIA operation. The fact that this operation was exposed in a government report suffices for notability. This clearly is real and I am certain that the CIA and the rest of the government don't want people to know about it. However, something does not become non-notable simply because it is potentially damaging to a government agency. Life, Liberty, Property 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Of which of the criteria for speedy keep are you referring? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Bad nomination. The quality of the article may be sub par, but that is not a reason for deletion. Jebba 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research and conspiracy theory, delete unless reliable source can be provide. Lectert 04:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep It's implausible that such a program doesn't exist. Observe the comments by former CBS news reader Dan Rather than the government helped write the news in the case of Abu Ghraib. User:Xwagner 15:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Life, Liberty, Property as well sourced and notable.--JForget 22:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't even believe someone would suggest this for deletion. Read history thoroughly, please. That goes for everyone here. We need scholars, not dogmatic skeptics. I am incredulous that just because an article from prisonplanet is in the top results at google for the query at hand, that this enough for someone to want to delete. How lazy can you be. For "reliable sources," start with the Church Committee investigation. Carl Bernstein even reported on it: [1]. Go to Google books if you don't trust websites, or can't manage a trip to the library. The only thing in doubt is the program's official name. That the CIA instituted an official program to infiltrate and influence the media is without question. The common appellation - for lack of an agency fess-up - is Mockingbird. XDev 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep That someone would suggest this article for deletion is stunning. It is not the article that is worthy of ridicule--those who would deny this verifiable fact of American history are worthy of ridicule. —Bots24601 9:09 PM PDT
  • Keep This article may need improvement, but deleting it outright is not acceptable. Sukiari 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The basic information as far as my research is very accurate. "Conspiracy theory" is the term used by people who wish not to deal with information that is contradictory to their beliefs. Instead of labeling, do a little research, unless you wish this article be removed in order to kill the truth. Maybe you don't want others to question what is going on or begin to think for themselves? Hum. Just maybe.Goalsmiths 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article is well referenced and belongs here. I can imagine that the only people who would want this removed are CIA themselves, since it is incriminating but none the less true, well referenced and well documented. Iamchrisryan 07:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Sourced and notable. Another Four Plasmids 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Deletion of this truth-based, verifiable, sourced article is unacceptable. 74.243.0.146 14:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong comment. This article's problems exceed what an AFD consensus can handle. Of the two most important sources, Katherine the Great is an obscure fringe book by an author of no note, and the Bernstein piece does not say what it is cited to say. An hour-long attempt to get to the bottom doesn't give me any idea whether the material is true or not, strange and utterly unacceptable for a Wikipedia article that makes such broad claims about important subjects. The overall thrust is not mainstream, even if built on bits and pieces of reality. It goes well beyond this article - many articles it links to have poorly sourced "Operation Mockingbird" material inserted by the same editors. No way can a consensus deletion vote here answer the question. Many voting to keep are Wikipedia conspiracy buffs. This needs arbitration or some formal fact-checking process. If we let it stand we risk spreading embarrassing misinformation about a very important subject. That CIA conducts covert propaganda operations is not in question; whether it happened this way or was called Operation Mockingbird is. Wikidemo 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I am appalled that anyone would consider deleting this article. Because it casts a very negative light upon US intelligence agencies' PAST covert operations within a democracy, I feel that deletion would violate the spirit of wikis in general and encourage the CURRENT tendency of certain elements of the US government to attempt to control the mainstream news. I am always in favor of re-investigation of articles like this in order to make them as error-free as possible, but this call for deletion by people whose political stances lead them to believe that they are protecting the CIA--or us--is just plain wrong. And that is what I believe is going on here. The "danger of misinformation" in this case seems to me to be from these would-be censors and not from the article. *edit* to add signature: posted by TizMeToo on 7 October, 2007
  • Strong Keep The reality of projects such as Mockingbird is unquestionable. There's too much proof (both on the net and off) to even consider it's veracity. Even if parts of this article are misinformed, removal of the entire article only further proliferates the type of secretism that has caused projects such as this to continue in both the past and the present. Correct the article if you must. Remove it at the cost of continued concealment of fascist exploitation. Brighid Moon 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Some people are politically opposed to the availability of this information, which is clearly the reason for the deletion comments. Only spoiled little children are unable to accept the reality of their mistakes; adults admit that while the U.S. is the best place in the world, we have done things we shouldn't, and trying to bury these things is the way of a pitiful coward who can't face reality and would rather just keep mindlessly waving a flag than think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.192.58 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well-sourced article about important event.--Bedivere 19:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.