Talk:Compromised (book)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Structure[edit]

According to WP:BOOKS the appropriate structure for this type of article would be:

  • Background
  • Summary/Content
  • Style/Genre
  • Analysis
  • Publication
  • Reception

This article is structured as follows:

  • Synopsis
  • Strzok served with special counsel
  • Trump as a possible source of counterintelligence
  • Authoritarian regimes
  • Critical reviews
  • See also

Which is quite different. Recommend adjusting structure to fit standard.Nweil (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Detail, Photo of March 31, 2016 Meeting of Foreign Policy Team, with Papadopolous (forth from right of Candidate Trump) from Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (cropped).png|nomination page]]. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

As a merge proposal has been suggested, but no discussion here (as there should be), I'm pinging the article's creator. User:Dcw2003. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Merging, standard practice is to discuss the proposed merge at the destination page. Accordingly, there is already a discussion at Talk:Peter_Strzok#IP’s_proposal_to_merge_book_article_into_this_article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thanks for doing that. I would oppose a merge as books normally have their own articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged duplication of scope of Crossfire Hurricane[edit]

User:Anythingyouwant, your edit summary: "because the Crossfire Hurricane already details the investigation into whether Trump was compromised by Russia"

I'm not sure that's relevant as this is written from Strzok’s POV, which varies a lot from the FBI's CH and Mueller investigations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reliable source about it: Bertrand, Natasha. “Peter Strzok would like to clear a few things up”, Politico (5 Sep 2020). That article says Strzok “led the FBI’s Russia investigation, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane….” and "Strzok’s new book, obtained by POLITICO ahead of its release next week, recaps the full arc of Crossfire Hurricane…." So it's pretty weird that this article never mentions "Crossfire Hurricane" once. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange that CH isn't mentioned. (I'm taking your word for that.) That can easily be fixed. From a quick scan of the content, I see some obvious duplication, but from his angle.
He believes Trump was and is compromised and a danger to national security. The CH investigation was non-partisan, whereas this book is Strzok's personal opinion on the matter, and obviously quite partisan. He shares the opinions of all the leaders of our intelligence agencies and Jimmy Carter, that Trump is an unparalleled danger to American security and democracy. Carter believes that Trump would not have become president without Russian help. He believes Trump was an illegitimate president, and Strzok shares that POV. That is not content from the CH investigation, which was taken over by Mueller and the investigation then stopped by Rosenstein.
So, even though there is duplication, this article is essentially a summary of the themes of the book. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and that raises a more general question: when Wikipedia has an NPOV article on a particular subject, and someone writes a rather one-sided book on that subject, is it okay for the Wikipedia article about the book to go into detail by presenting the particular subject in a way that is very different from the NPOV article on that subject? I don’t know the answer, but will try to look for the answer. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a noticeboard discussion here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To remain neutral, we should document the POV of the author. He builds a case for why he thinks Trump is compromised. We shouldn't let editorial POV interfere in that matter. That would violate NPOV. The two articles are different, and that's okay. If this were a fringe subject, and it isn't, then there would be fringe/pseudoscientific/conspiratorial claims, and we would be obligated to present the balancing views from mainstream RS. We would not allow false information to stand alone. We would neutrally document it, but add what mainstream sources say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the headings because I was expecting Synopsis to summarize the book (which it didn't) and it was unclear that the other headings were about the book's contents.Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works nicely. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the old state of the article didn't fully fit the MOS in how much of the page was covered by synopsis -- the trimming of the article seems slightly excessive in scope since now there is no synopsis section at all. - Rauisuchian (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a synopsis can be written based upon the many book reviews and other reliable sources, that would be fine. But us using Mr. Strzok’s own book to construct a synopsis does not seem like a good idea; consensus at the NPOV noticeboard leans against that, and inability to find third-party sources suggests lack of notability. Turning this article into a POV fork of our Crossfire Hurricane article would be unwise, and I don’t see how we avoid that if Strzok’s book can be used as our leading source. Likewise, the reliability and notability of Strzok’s book as a source about itself are questionable. However we source a synopsis, it would also have to comply with WP:SUBPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was about a book[edit]

It appears that now all the content telling what the book is about is gone, and only a weird section called "Trump's accusations against Hillary Clinton" is left, and some biographical info about the author, making the article about the author than about the book. I think that deletion of the original content has gone a bit too far, to put it mildly. There should be a synopsis of the content and premise of the book. Strzok describes the many ways that Trump was compromised and thus, wittingly or unwittingly, indebted to Putin. The article deserves that, at a minimum. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll reiterate some stuff here….If further details about the book (e.g. a synopsis) can be written based upon the many book reviews and other reliable sources, that would be okay. But for us to use Strzok’s own book as the source for that wouldn’t be a good idea; see discussion at NPOV noticeboard. Inability to find third-party sources also suggests lack of notability. We mustn’t turn this article into a content fork of our Crossfire Hurricane article, and it would be hard to do otherwise if Strzok’s book is used as our leading source. The reliability and notability of Strzok’s book as a source about itself are questionable. In any event, we would also have to comply with WP:SUBPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABOUTSELF does apply here, so limited use is allowed. Otherwise, I definitely agree we should use secondary sources where possible, but not always "instead of" Strzok and the book. They get their say also. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Limited use may be allowed if it doesn’t turn into a non-NPOV version of our article on Crosshire Hurricane, but I’m not seeing that such limited use is necessary given the very widespread coverage of this book in reliable secondary sources. Also, statements of opinion are subject to special consideration. And WP:SUBPOV applies regardless of how we use this book as a source on itself. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is about editorial behavior (edit in a neutral manner by keeping ones own POV out of the matter), not content or sources. NPOV specifically allows biased content and biased sources. SUBPOV allows content to lean toward one POV, so a book about one POV should describe that POV and remain "unbalanced". OTHERTHINGS forbids us from comparing this article with other articles. They do not have to balance each other. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonfiction books with specific POV, do indeed get a full detailed synopsis/content section on wiki. Outside of politics articles, popular science books with added author commentary such as The Selfish Gene, Guns, Germs, and Steel, and Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, each get extensive detail on contents, in order to describe and summarize the subject of the article. There are ways to attribute the author in such sections. So Valjean is 100% right on this. - Rauisuchian (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a thread at the NPOV noticeboard on this very subject, see here. That’s probably the best place to discuss this further if you would like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the books mentioned above by User:Rauisuchian are not BLP’s, so the use of primary sources (i.e. those books themselves) is not discouraged as much as it is for BLPs. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premise[edit]

The section about the “Premise” of the book includes an allegation/opinion that Trump lied about his business doings in Russia. We mention the Wikipedia article Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia but we don’t include the pertinent part:


I think this is worth including in the premise section for NPOV, even if WP:SUBPOV does not apply to this article (which I think it does). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the claim was in doubt (as would any fringe claim), we could justify adding more content to explain the matter, but it is a documented fact that Trump lied about his secret Trump Tower Moscow dealings while a candidate, so we don't need to add a discussion about "why the sky is blue". We practically never take Trump's or Giuliani's statements, especially denials, at face value. They are nearly always counterfactual. We are not simpleminded or gullible here.
BTW, you are the one who added the link to his business dealings. It's not necessary, but I kept it while I moved it to a better spot. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you dispute that the proposed material is correct and supported by reliable secondary sources? Do you dispute that if we discuss his business dealings in Russia, then it’s perfectly appropriate to wlink the WP article on that subject? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the wikilink, but more than that would be improper as such content would be an abuse of the article by improper coatracking. The mention of a topic in the book does not give permission for anyone to then add discussion of the topic. That detracts from the focus of the article, which is the book. I fear the consequences of your thinking as it would allow any book article to become a veritable Christmas tree of coatracked content, just because the book mentions a topic. That would be wrong and against current practice. A book article should maintain strict focus on the book. Other articles are on a par with each other and balancing material is often necessary. We do not do that with book articles. Otherwise, ordinary articles on one POV should remain on that POV, but we do allow mention and linking to contrary views found in other articles so readers can go there and find more info. An article on religion would logically have short mention and linking to atheism. That is allowed.
The exception, as I have mentioned, is fringe topics. We do not allow lies, conspiracy theories, and false claims to stand alone. We add balancing content which is likely found in other articles, even if the main topic of the article is not mentioned in the source. That way readers are not led astray. Fringe topics are persona non grata here and we persecute them, and rightly so. We hunt them down and expose them. In every single article, we make sure that it's clear that "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia". We say that Wikipedia does not take sides, but when confronted with a contest between unreliable ideas and sources, Wikipedia sides with RS and the ideas found there. RS and facts have more due weight.
I did rearrange the placement of the mention of Trump's Russian business activities as it seemed to imply that only his business activities were compromised. Not everyone understands or can properly parse such sentences. I tweaked it to ensure no one would misunderstand it. The point of kompromat and being compromised is that any private embarrassing or improper deed renders one vulnerable to blackmail. If the deed is public, the threat no longer exists. It is the mere threat of "I'll reveal what you did if you don't comply with my wishes" that places one person under the control of another. We understand that, but some people don't.
The link is borderline coatrack and totally unnecessary, but I won't dispute it as it is now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you oppose using the relevant secondary sources that I’ve suggested, but you support using a primary source (i.e. this book itself) unaccompanied by secondary sources to justify further article text? According to policy (WP:NOR), “Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.” When the article is a BLP (like this is) WP:BLP amplifies those warnings about relying upon primary sources. Wikipedia has a few articles that each are focused on a particular book that is negative about Hillary Clinton:

None of those books use the book itself as a primary source to regurgitate claims and allegations in those books that we cannot find secondary or tertiary sources to describe. I’m glad to forget about my suggestion in the first comment of this talk page section, if you’ll refrain from making much use of primary sources (e.g. the book itself). Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Compromised_(book)&oldid=1199664431"