![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
"Kompromat" does not mean "compromising" but "comprometting" material. "To compromet" = to tarnish a reputation; to draw into bad light; to destroy someone’s public image. "Comprometting material" is something which can be used on blackmailing, extortion and bullying: "compromising material" would be something which could be used to access the opponent's resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.159.117 ( talk) 08:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The meaning of the word "Kompromat" is just blackmail, only with focus shifted onto the blackmail materials rather than the act of blackmailing.
We don't need special second articles for mundane things just because you heard a scary Russian word for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:309F:1EA7:ED13:6BCE ( talk) 22:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The English article makes me believe that 'kompromat', as described, is used strictly within politics of Russian Federation. The actual meaning of the word is more general, and can apply to politics of any other state, or organisation (even a small, or non-formal organisation, such as group of friends). The Russian version of the article reflects the actual meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.86.21 ( talk) 12:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
A dubious, and insufficiently documented example is given in the article: specifically, there is virtually no reliable proof that the incident concerning Ted Kennedy tried to work with the KGB in order to beat Ronald Reagan in 1984. See </ref> https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/18/greg-gutfeld/fox-news-host-cites-ted-kennedy-kgb-meeting-never-/</ref> Inadequately documented because the two sources it offers are 1) Kevin Mooney writing for a less than reputable right wing source of propaganda, "The Daily Signal." He provides virtually no reliable sources for his assertions. 2)Larry Elder in "Real Clear Politics." cites a story in the "London Times" about a memo, but the memo is not corroborated sufficiently As Politifact points out: "The memo gained attention when it was the basis of a news report published in the London Times in 1992, after the Soviet Union dissolved. When the report came out, Tunney told the London Times that it was "bull----." We reached Tunney in 2015, and he emphatically repeated that."
Furthermore, the entry with these citations is irrelevant to the topic of the article. It is not about Kompromat but about what the contributor calls: "reverse kompromat." This is as a example of "Everybody does it" or Tu quoque as a means of deflecting or diminishing suspicions directed at Trump. This is a frequent theme in the right-wing media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.62.243 ( talk) 08:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It will help if there were more verifiable online sources.
Also does anyone feel that this belongs to wiktionary and not wikipedia ? Sasank Sleeper ( talk) 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that this is used by multiple agencies, not just Russian ones. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 08:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kompromat →
Compromising material – Why should we use the Russian term for this? This isn't something that's confined to Russia and there's no other article about it. The Russian term for it could be named in a section "In Russia" or alike.
Fixuture (
talk)
21:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This happens to Eldon Chance, some child porn is planted on his laptop (presumably by an evil cop who beats his wife that Chance is investigating) and he nearly plays it during a presentation he is giving for psychiatry.
Does anyone recall any other instances of it in culture? I think someone mentions it as a tactic against an enemy in orphan Black. Keeping track of cultural references (whether or not the Russian term is used) could be useful to mention at the end of this article. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This Project is often a victim of Kompromat in the form of subtle vandalism. The vandal contributes a phrase or paragraph that is sub-standard or wrong, but not hightly visible. Knowledgeble readers see this text and credibility of the Project is lessened. Disruptive as a free Encyclopedia is to various individuals that purvey information, there is ample motivation to undercut this source. As the site crosses all languages and is accessible anywhere, it is the battleground of information warfare on some controversial topics, and others where information has value. WP:SUBTLE represents a conscious group effort to address the problem. With so many articles, and a Talk on each, an editor can feel isolated, but there is at least this resource. — Rgdboer ( talk) 23:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Other defensive projects include WP:Typo Team and WP:Countering systemic bias. All editors are incouraged to remove compromising materials when found in text. — Rgdboer ( talk) 23:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
According to the article:
This account is problematic. For a start, the KGB didn't exist in the Stalin era. Nor did business to a great extent. And the electoral and legal domains were very different to what they are now. Prostitution in the USSR was very much underground, and I believe the illegal drug trade didn't exist until the 1980s. Nor did "videos" exist in the 1930s. I think they emerged in the 1980s. Moreover, the sources imply that kompromat boomed in the 1990s, after the demise of the USSR and the KGB.
The "History" section starts with the cases of John Vassall and Joseph Alsop, which also occurred after the Stalin era.
There seems to be a conflation of practices from a wide range of periods.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I removed this section for a few different reasons, one being that uncritically presenting a hotly-disputed claim that rests on a single memo from a highly-dubious source like the KGB archives as uncontested fact is utterly irresponsible and smacks of POV-pushing. Politifact, incidentally, rated the story as false. [1]
But that’s kind of beside the point, because the story isn’t an example of Kompromat even if it’s true: Kompromat involves the exploitation of compromising material for the purpose of blackmail or negative publicity. There isn’t any of that in this story, so why was this off-topic passage ever allowed into this article? -- Rrburke ( talk) 12:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
"Kompromat" does not mean "compromising" but "comprometting" material. "To compromet" = to tarnish a reputation; to draw into bad light; to destroy someone’s public image. "Comprometting material" is something which can be used on blackmailing, extortion and bullying: "compromising material" would be something which could be used to access the opponent's resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.159.117 ( talk) 08:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The meaning of the word "Kompromat" is just blackmail, only with focus shifted onto the blackmail materials rather than the act of blackmailing.
We don't need special second articles for mundane things just because you heard a scary Russian word for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:309F:1EA7:ED13:6BCE ( talk) 22:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The English article makes me believe that 'kompromat', as described, is used strictly within politics of Russian Federation. The actual meaning of the word is more general, and can apply to politics of any other state, or organisation (even a small, or non-formal organisation, such as group of friends). The Russian version of the article reflects the actual meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.86.21 ( talk) 12:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
A dubious, and insufficiently documented example is given in the article: specifically, there is virtually no reliable proof that the incident concerning Ted Kennedy tried to work with the KGB in order to beat Ronald Reagan in 1984. See </ref> https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/18/greg-gutfeld/fox-news-host-cites-ted-kennedy-kgb-meeting-never-/</ref> Inadequately documented because the two sources it offers are 1) Kevin Mooney writing for a less than reputable right wing source of propaganda, "The Daily Signal." He provides virtually no reliable sources for his assertions. 2)Larry Elder in "Real Clear Politics." cites a story in the "London Times" about a memo, but the memo is not corroborated sufficiently As Politifact points out: "The memo gained attention when it was the basis of a news report published in the London Times in 1992, after the Soviet Union dissolved. When the report came out, Tunney told the London Times that it was "bull----." We reached Tunney in 2015, and he emphatically repeated that."
Furthermore, the entry with these citations is irrelevant to the topic of the article. It is not about Kompromat but about what the contributor calls: "reverse kompromat." This is as a example of "Everybody does it" or Tu quoque as a means of deflecting or diminishing suspicions directed at Trump. This is a frequent theme in the right-wing media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.62.243 ( talk) 08:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It will help if there were more verifiable online sources.
Also does anyone feel that this belongs to wiktionary and not wikipedia ? Sasank Sleeper ( talk) 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that this is used by multiple agencies, not just Russian ones. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 08:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kompromat →
Compromising material – Why should we use the Russian term for this? This isn't something that's confined to Russia and there's no other article about it. The Russian term for it could be named in a section "In Russia" or alike.
Fixuture (
talk)
21:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This happens to Eldon Chance, some child porn is planted on his laptop (presumably by an evil cop who beats his wife that Chance is investigating) and he nearly plays it during a presentation he is giving for psychiatry.
Does anyone recall any other instances of it in culture? I think someone mentions it as a tactic against an enemy in orphan Black. Keeping track of cultural references (whether or not the Russian term is used) could be useful to mention at the end of this article. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This Project is often a victim of Kompromat in the form of subtle vandalism. The vandal contributes a phrase or paragraph that is sub-standard or wrong, but not hightly visible. Knowledgeble readers see this text and credibility of the Project is lessened. Disruptive as a free Encyclopedia is to various individuals that purvey information, there is ample motivation to undercut this source. As the site crosses all languages and is accessible anywhere, it is the battleground of information warfare on some controversial topics, and others where information has value. WP:SUBTLE represents a conscious group effort to address the problem. With so many articles, and a Talk on each, an editor can feel isolated, but there is at least this resource. — Rgdboer ( talk) 23:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Other defensive projects include WP:Typo Team and WP:Countering systemic bias. All editors are incouraged to remove compromising materials when found in text. — Rgdboer ( talk) 23:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
According to the article:
This account is problematic. For a start, the KGB didn't exist in the Stalin era. Nor did business to a great extent. And the electoral and legal domains were very different to what they are now. Prostitution in the USSR was very much underground, and I believe the illegal drug trade didn't exist until the 1980s. Nor did "videos" exist in the 1930s. I think they emerged in the 1980s. Moreover, the sources imply that kompromat boomed in the 1990s, after the demise of the USSR and the KGB.
The "History" section starts with the cases of John Vassall and Joseph Alsop, which also occurred after the Stalin era.
There seems to be a conflation of practices from a wide range of periods.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I removed this section for a few different reasons, one being that uncritically presenting a hotly-disputed claim that rests on a single memo from a highly-dubious source like the KGB archives as uncontested fact is utterly irresponsible and smacks of POV-pushing. Politifact, incidentally, rated the story as false. [1]
But that’s kind of beside the point, because the story isn’t an example of Kompromat even if it’s true: Kompromat involves the exploitation of compromising material for the purpose of blackmail or negative publicity. There isn’t any of that in this story, so why was this off-topic passage ever allowed into this article? -- Rrburke ( talk) 12:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)