Talk:Counter Misinformation Team

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

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Counter Misinformation Team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228104436/http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/September/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html to http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/September/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901570.html -Location (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]