Talk:East StratCom Task Force

Criticism

The Criticism section is almost exclusively sourced by a few sources in Danish which are highly biased and repeat arguments propagated by Russian media almost verbatim ("no evidence for downing MH17 by Russia"). The section on fake news law in Denmark does not even believe into this article - it could be mentioned in StratCom had some input into the law, but it's article about StratCom and not freedom of speech in Denmark so it's WP:UNDUE and should be covered in detail elsewhere. In case of other critical opinions, I would suggest that more English-language sources are found and most of these sections can be summarized in one paragraph. Cloud200 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw now that @Sunrise: emptied the whole section. While Danish-only information may not belong here, emptying the whole section does not seem warranted either. I would suggest that the section is restored with the due template, and that a better version is worked-upon in a sandbox if needed. --Dans (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

In this case 'highly biased' refers to sources like: content published on the website of The Danish Parliament, Denmark's oldest news paper, The Danish Foreign Minister, the largest online portal for communication professionals, etc. More sources added. BigBoy75 (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"Other examples include EUvsDisinfo attributing claims to RT Arabic for merely reporting claims made by others and inclusion of an article in the EUvsDisinfo database denying that Russia is waging a disinformation campaign around COVID-19 on questionable grounds.[55]" Isn't it the same thing? If those outlets can't verify the sources before repeating their bogus claims, how does that become effective criticism of East StratCom Task Force for listing the outlets as misleading? This is also sourced to Reframing Russia that may not be reliable. I failed to see any WP:RSN archive discussing it and it's barely used in WP space. —PaleoNeonate – 01:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a small reminder that per WP:V articles should be based on reliable sources, not on editors' opinions. If you personally disagree with a source that's not a valid reason for removing it. 143.244.37.181 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It would have been more useful to provide more information on why the source is reliable, or to explain about why the above issue is irrelevant, rather than claiming that I WP:DONTLIKEIT. Verification is useless if the sources are unreliable. However I've now looked a it a bit. Unless I'm mistaken, this would be academic research funded by Arts and Humanities Research Council (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)? I've seen some other strange things like https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/investigation-of-rt/ but it may be a usable source afterall. Another point would be if it should be attributed. —PaleoNeonate – 12:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll start an WP:RSN thread about this source. —PaleoNeonate – 13:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources

I noticed that several of the refs are to the task force's own sites and in one case the reference states that "Material has been copied from this source. Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged." Although reuse may be legally allowed, Wikipedia should use reliable secondary sources to avoid bias. 143.244.37.181 (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources; Criticism section; POV

I would like to share the materials that I found and clear up some important things about sources used in this article.
1. Jesper Larsen
Politiken here here:
"blogger Jesper Larsen sympathizes with the Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine and is critical of East StratCom. His previous research has been an important source of Marie Krarup's (DF) criticism of the EU office."

Front Page article from Politiken is written by then Russian correspondent and head of investigative journalism at Politiken. It was shared/published by the National Defense College. The title of the article is ‘EU caught in propaganda fog of war’. It is based on initial research by Jesper Larsen handed over in full to the media – clearly stated at the end of the article. Politiken did further research linking East StratCom corporation to Myrotvotets quoting “we all work together”. Larsen is not an auther of the article.

Immediately after, the Danish FM commented on the article in the parliament saying he had made sure to give instructions to his ministry to ensure doubts could not be raised in the future about the impartiality of East StratCom.

These facts are supported by parliament tv. --BigBoy75 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Zetland here says:
"he [Jesper Larsen] defends Russia's activities, such as the country's annexation of Crimea and the Russian - backed separatist struggle in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine."

You are adding your own original research gathered from EUvsDisinfo to discredit the source. The Zetland view-code is gathered from here. EUvsDisinfo does not have any journalistic principles or oversight. There's no author names. :--BigBoy75 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Berlingske here says:
"blogger Jesper Larsen is interviewed in pro-government Russian media. He is part of a spiritual community in Denmark, whose struggle is about much more than the Russian agenda." They also note that Jesper Larsen accuses the "entire Danish press" of manipulation, lies and distortion.
So he is not an expert, biased pro-Kremlin blogger and just blames entire press. How crazy is that? I mean it is okay to criticize, but his level of expertise is not good enough to be included here. He just hates StratCom project and nothing else. No scientific basis. Definitely not RS.

Again you do your own research and "crazy" judgement and assertions to discredit the source. The article is not part of the source for the Wiki-entry but found on EUvsDisinfo site to discredit the source. --BigBoy75 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

2. ReframingRussia.com
Regarding this resource, I would simply advise you to read this article: UK Academics Get Hefty Grant to 'Reframe Russia'.

an article containing the 'opinion' of the author Sarah Hurst, funded by Open Society among others. She has a long portfolio of solely anti-Russian articles. What point is to be made from the article except that you agree with her more than the professors at University of Manchester?

--BigBoy75 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the best choice is to use secondary reliable sources for Reframing Russia's analytics. And if there is no reliable secondary source, then don't use it. And definitely not to copy and paste from their site as it is done now. The section with criticism from ReframingRussia.com takes up too much space unreasonably.

Reframing Russia mainly analyze and criticize Russian media but they also criticize EUvsDisinfo for doing exactly what EUvsDisinfo are accusing "pro-Kremlin" media of doing. Needless to say this statement was not well recieved in some circles. --BigBoy75 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

3. I also think that one of the main problems with improving the article is the questionable contribution of one particular editor. Latest example is - diff. Removing template for no reason, adding only critical information, adding unreliable deprecated sources like Sputnik, marking edits as minor, when they are not. Take a look at editor's contribution history. Focused only on this article and reverts other editor's attempts to fix NPOV and Weight violations. I hope we do not have to deal with this case in the noticeboard. BigBoy75, I want to remind you about this: WP:PUSH and WP:NEUTRAL. Should editors be worried about your behaviour as an editor? I am bringing this here because I suspect you might don't like a subject of the article and this might directly affect the process of improving the article.

The criticism of EUvsDisinfo is based on solid sources and no 'blogger' opinions. Have a look at the contributions of the user you are defending. His main activity seams to be removing sources to information and media he does not like. "Truth policing"

Quick summary:
1. We are not using blogger Jesper Larsen without secondary RS in this article.

Not a single example of this. No opinions of Jesper Larsen in the article is cited. No blogs are used as source material. All is published material.

2. We are not using Reframing Russia without secondary RS in this article.

Because you don't like the research of RR at the University of Manchester - because it leads to the wrong message?

3. We use information from the above sources only in the form in which it is presented by reliable secondary sources, without taking directly from Jesper Larsen and ReframingRussia.com, because it gives a lot of space for WP:RSUW and WP:OR violation.
After all, we have WP:PRIMARY rule.

You have injected your own opinion which you believe to be truth. This means people with facts but wrong opinions must be wrong. You cite rules but haven't demonstrated any violation of these rules.

@Sunrise:@Cloud200:@PaleoNeonate: thoughts? --Renat (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
While I was fixing the issues, I also noticed one more thing - the editor who added information to the Criticism section, did the original research and added the same sources several times to give the impression that the text is supported by a large number of sources. In some sources, Jesper Larsen even wrote about himself in the third person. Here, for example. This is madness. He calls himself a "researcher", and then it is added to the encyclopedia.--Renat (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You're disingenuous. Your claim relies entirely on writing that a report is written by "Jesper Larsen" instead of writing "me". But you admit you rely on your own research and opinions. --BigBoy75 (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In the course of work on the verification of compliance with WP:V, I discovered a fact of serious violation of the rules and I am forced to ask for a topic ban on the editor BigBoy75. I guess it will take some time to prepare every evidence of his disruptive editing. And I hate to prepare it since I already wasted hours on exposing it.--Renat (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I would support rewriting the article, possibly starting with a list of sources we want to use. The Reframing Russia one might be usable but not as a main source and likely should be attributed as opinions (does not appear to be strong enough for unquestionable facts IRT WP:YESPOV)... —PaleoNeonate – 13:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

RenatUK have exposed nothing short of own bias. The sections deleted was discussed in state broadcasters premiere "most trusted" show, Deadline, and was supported by The Free Press Society 2004.

The original entire content on the article mainly compose of promotional material written by paid staff at EUvsDisinfo. Nobody objected to that.

RenatUK have not pointed to a 'single' wrong information or wrong description in the content deleted, only attacked motivations and views of sources.

If Wikipedia is not for people to get/find genuine authentic sources contradicting their own POV, so they can make up their own mind, what is the point of it? --BigBoy75 (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

On how to provide credible sources

When Reframing Russia at the University of Manchester accuse EUvsDisinfo of "blatant distortions" I obviously provide a source link to this accusation. A specific example of blatant distortion is EUvsDisinfo accusation against Sputnik for claiming that "Coronavirus is an attempt by the Anglo-Saxons to control China". I provide source links to RR, EUvsDisinfo and Sputnik radio/article.
It is provided for documentation and the opportunity for readers to look into if it is a "blatant distortion" or not.
The only reason to remove the Sputnik source link (but not source link to EUvsDisinfo) is DONOTLIKE-ideology as Sputnik is never used as a source for any factual assertion. I hope the ludicrously is clear. Sputnik is the primary source. EUvsDisinfo distorts the Sputnik show according to Reframing Russia. Sputnik is the source for what they did not report. Sputnik is not added as a source for anything they did in fact report. --BigBoy75 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• You made this edit - diff. You added "Berlingske obtained a four-page document produced by the East StratCom Task Force". Show me a single word in that Berlingske article where is says that this document was produced by StratCom. Berlingske said nothing about StratCom. I bought a subscription for that newspaper to verify by myself. After such edits (it was just one of them) I have no desire to cooperate with you. It is a clear topic ban reason, because you added a lot of such OR content during last 2 years and now I am forced (I hope someone will help me) to check every single word that you added.--Renat (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• In summary for people not buying a subscription the article is titled "Not a single example of Russian disinformation". Berlingske were handed a document from the Ministry of Defense which is stated in the article. The actual 3½-page document is embedded in the article and lists examples of the Russian regimes use of disinformation according to it's headline.
  There are no verifiable sources in the undated document. East StratCom is cited/attributed for reference explicitly 3 times, starting from the top:
  -"EU's East Stratcom Task Force has uncovered 9 different stories about the chain of events... "
  -"EU's East Stratcom Taskforce have created a list of the variants..."
  -"story can be read at EU's East Stratcom Taskforce's disinformation overview ...".
  No other attributions are made. East StratCom is the implied attributed source for all of the content.
  While we do not know the actual person who created the document and he/she could be working at either MoD or East StratCom, I find the description "produced by East StratCom" to be fully accurate. Pedantically somebody could claim the document is (only) "based on East StratCom material" and make that distinction.

According to your own writings you have spent a lot of time researching sources and you even bought a subscription to read the article. You haven't provided a single example of a distortion. You spew one accusation after another without providing any evidence. Not a single edit from you correcting any factual error og clarification I have made. Instead you have spend your time discrediting people that you want to delete and ban.

I will wait a while before i undo your deletions unless somebody does take charge and decide on this. As for why I only edit this topic it is exactly because I feel discouraged by having my work deleted by people who stops by a topic and decides to 'ideologically purify' the encyclopedia so it reinforces them in their own belief. I do not feel the need to add positive information about East StratCom as revisions clearly show EU has paid staff to do exactly that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBoy75 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • • Berlingske said nothing about StratCom producing this document. Berlingske said that this document was from Ministry of Defence, not StratCom. And you are saying the opposite. It is just a nonsense. I will stop my conversion with you here. --Renat (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Berlingske writes that the Minister of Justice is unable to provide a single example of Russian disinformation followed by: “In an unprecedented document from the Ministry of Defense, which Berlingske has received, 11 "examples of the Russian regime's use of disinformation" are set out. The first is about the Malaysian Arlines MH17…”

The document available to everyone as it’s embedded in the article itself. In the document East StratCom is cited specifically for this information and East StratCom is the source for all the examples which are all published on EUvsDisinfo website including news letters.

It’s like calling me a liar for saying “I got a pizza from the pizzeria” because I got it from the delivery guy.

I’ll restore all of it sooner or later, now waiting for somebody else to make a ruling. If you have concrete valid examples of my wrongdoings put them in a form so they can be easily verified and separated from your POV by other users. Even East StratCom doesn't do what you do, they corrected a factual error I inadeptly made. This is how Wikipedia should work.--BigBoy75 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)