Talk:Counter Misinformation Team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

It was wrong to label this a part of the "Bush administration", as if the president himself has control over a small office within the State Department. I've cleaned it up some. Rhobite 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Unfortunately people have a poor conception of how government works and the bureaucracy involved. This is a legitimate function of the State Department; if people are slandering you, are you expected to take it or refute it? --Mmx1 17:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Jyri Raivio, a journalist in Finland's Helsingin Sanomat newspaper...". I am from Finland and the Helsingin Sanomat drops through my mailbox every morning. I would say that using this second hand quote of an opinion piece is utterly non-encyclopedic. There are all kinds of almost blog-type opinion pieces in the newspaper. Using random out of context clippings of quotes of chatty editorial musings is utterly irresponsible POV pushing for an encyclopedia editor. Weregerbil 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But deleting criticism is not, right? --Striver 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that your opinion? Please say what you mean directly. I think deleting criticism is fine if that criticism is a misrepresentation of a single individual person's speculation. The newspaper quote is out of context second hand rumor mongering of an individual person playing devil's advocate in an opinion piece. It is utterly bogus that such random speculation is being used in an encyclopedia article to push someone's POV on some conspiracy theory. Weregerbil 11:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking into account:

  • Second hand information
  • Primary source not available
  • Quote with no context
  • No evidence the "report" (more probably speculative opinion column) concerns the subject of the article
  • From an opinion article (the newspaper has distinct news and non-news speculative columns exploring different ideas, and this ain't news)
  • From a newspaper that occasionally does "devil's advocate" type columns (yes, I am a long time subscriber to the newspaper)
  • At best, even if the quote is accurately portrayed and a real opinion of the person (not just thinking out loud to explore new avenues of thought), still is the personal opinion of one not particularly notable guy. Journalists here are not magical superheroes whose every utterance is manna from heaven.
  • Coatrack article cruft (to coin a protologism). Article professes to be about something, but in reality is an empty coatrack on which someone's biased fact picking about something is hung.

Yes, I intend to delete the quote as utterly unencyclopedic and lacking genuine verification. Weregerbil 13:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)