![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This is obviously a self-article. It is not illegal, of course, but it is also not very nice, to say the minimum.-- Szilas ( talk) 08:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Anon3579: Okay. This is a complicated issue, but Wikipedia has fairly strict policies on how we cover living people: WP:BLP. We also have guidelines restricting how we use WP:PRIMARY sources, and court documents are definitely primary sources. The case number is valid, and can be looked up, although Virginia's website doesn't make it particularly easy. That said, court documents are notoriously difficult to properly assess for meaning and due weight, and nothing remotely controversial should be supported only by a primary source. Since this appears to be a minor issue, better sources are needed before going into depth.
@ 2250yset: I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're the same editor as Ccherzog, is that right? Judging by the past history of very promotional editing here, I'm also willing to bet that you're Sk-gorka. Considering that this is a BLP issue, I think some slack can be given, but creating a new account just to continue edit warring is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's policies, and I hope it's obvious why. I understand why this might be frustrating, but using a misleading edit summary is transparently deceptive and shows contempt for Wikipedia as a website, which makes it much harder to work with you. Editing with a conflict of interest is itself also a big problem, which has already been explained on at least one account's talk page. Please clearly explain what's going on, otherwise all three accounts are likely to be blocked. Do you understand?
No matter how much you undermine your own credibility here with these antics, even if blocked, if you are notable enough to be discussed, you are entitled to neutral coverage according to Wikipedia's policies. If you have a problem with content about yourself, the best way to fix it is by raising it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. There admins and other experienced editors can help you, and the issue will almost certainly be seen and handled much more quickly than if you try and handle it yourself. Grayfell ( talk) 02:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I used to be highly active on Wikipedia (clearly, I am not active as I struggled to remember how to outdent). I happened upon this article, wondering who Sebastian Gorka is after reading something about him on Fox News.
I am both amused and dismayed to find the article had to be locked down due to edit warring over a rather simple issue. If my 2¢ helps at all, this Google search on “Sebastian Gorka gun” yielded a few hits dating to February of this year. One of them is to an RS, The Washington Post ( this article).
Too often, wikipedians take it upon themselves to be intrepid cub reporters Changing the World©®™® and this leads—among many types of issues—to misguided efforts to bring to light all manner of information the wikipedian believes is encyclopedically relevant. Single-purpose accounts, such as User:2250yset are not infrequently dedicated to ensuring Wikipedia articles conform to their personal interests and world view. It's a prescription for edit warring, in which case, we look towards established policy, which is a tortuous product of consensus.
IMHO, we should look towards RSs like The Washington Post. The totality of what sort of coverage there is on a topic like the gun charge, how much of it there is, and when it was last in the news should guide us as wikipedians when deciding what is encyclopedically germane and how much emphasis to place on a given topic.
All things considered, the current version (perma-link as of this writing) seems like the issue of the gun charges is encyclopedic and has due weight. There is no undo weight given to the incident via such means as a separate sub-heading titled “Gun charges”, and there isn’t undo dwelling on the subject.
If, a few years down the road into the Trump administration, the RSs seem to be ignoring the gun-charge issue, we should consider dropping mention of the incident as possible agenda pushing. For the moment, the current treatment seems appropriate. Greg L ( talk) 22:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I am going to ask a dispute resolution. -- Ltbuni ( talk) 17:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I was asked to weigh in on this conversation by Ltbuni because I mediated a dispute involving them on another article...probably a few months ago. So here are my thoughts:
To be clear, we're here discussing the links drawn by an article in Forward and followed up by several other media sources, leading to a statement by the Anti-Defamation League cited in Haaretz, yes? Forward is a long-established and credible Jewish newspaper in New York, albeit one with a clear leftist bent, and Haaretz is a serious newspaper; the willingness of several other credible sources already cited by Snooganssnoogans to cite the Forward story without qualification as to source support its credibility, as does the resulting statement by the ADL on the question of anti-semitism. The ADL statement is in any case noteworthy. Disputing these sources as such doesn't seem reasonable I see that Timothy has put this over to WP:BLPN; is this actually a standard dispute resolution method? No one has replied in two days; are we just waiting, or what? Mikalra ( talk) 18:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans and I have been edit-warring and we've been unable to settle our differences on the following edits. Using the same sources he writes:
Gorka has been characterized as a fringe figure in academic and policy-making circles. [1] [2] According to the Washington Post, "Gorka’s academic credentials, particularly on the subject of Islam, are thin." [1] The New Yorker describes Gorka as a "a self-styled expert on Islam and terrorism". [3] His published works have not been widely cited among scholars of terrorism and national-security experts. [1] Several experts have questioned both Gorka's knowledge of foreign policy issues and his professional behavior. [1] [2] Stephen M. Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, has described Gorka as an "oddball". [4] Max Boot, the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, has described Gorka as an "anti-Muslim extremist". [5] According to the New York Times, some have described Gorka as being part of "the Islamophobia industry, a network of researchers who have warned for many years of the dangers of Islam". [6]
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
and I write, using the same sources, (with a heading “Views on terrorism")
Greg Jaffe, of the Washington Post, argues that Gorka’s views “signal a radical break” from the discourse “defined by the city’s Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite” of the last 16 years. Both Bush and Obama rejected the notion that Islam had anything to do with terrorism. Gorka rejects the opposing view, that the driving force of terror is “repression, alienation, torture, tribalism, poverty” or foreign interference. Inspired by Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order and by Bernard Lewis' Roots of Muslim rage, he thinks that “the power that [a] religion can have or a distortion of religion” is central to understanding the jihadi movement. His critics argue this approach could alienate Muslim allies. Gorka’s viewpoint was influenced by his comparison of Islamism to other totalitarian movements, where ideology played a central role. [1] Pamela Engel, of the Business Insider, notes that Gorka has many critics but some “in the national-security community have defended Gorka.” [2]
References
wapo170220
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).My problem with Snooganssnoogans’ edit is that it is essentially labeling and name-calling by Gorka’s political opponents. They label him “fringe,” “self-styled,” “oddball,” “extremist,” and add vague charges that question his expertise without explanation. My approach is to describe his views and the views of his critics. I explain how they differ. I also note his views were not in favor during the Bush-Obama years. But his idea that religious ideology plays are role was accepted by Bill Clinton’s staff as seen by their book [8] and by our reference to the pre-Bush experts Lewis and Huntington. I believe this flushes out what they are calling “oddball” and “fringe” among other pejoratives. I’d like a third opinion if someone can help us reach a consensus. Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence of this entry says, "Sebastian Lukács Gorkais...is an American military and intelligence analyst who works for the National Security Advisor."
According to National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Gorka does not work for him or the National Security Council. (NBC's Meet The Press, August 13, 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalbrian ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The initial section of the article is currently far too detailed. Per WP:LEAD, it's supposed to be a summary of the important aspects of topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"Lukacs von Gorka" ? I am not sure that it is correct. Verification/Source needed. Fakirbakir ( talk) 17:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The middle name is here, and his PhD thesis has " Sebastian L. v. Gorka" and a monograph for the University of Central Florida " [9]". He has also gone by "Sebastian von Gorka" elsewhere, like in this 2016 radio appearance. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 20:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the 'v' is adopted by oathed members of the Vitezi Rend. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/03/a_top_trump_aide_has_been_strongly_linked_to_a_nazi_group.html Khamba Tendal ( talk) 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be making the political act of removing the "v" just because it is politically awkward for Mr. Gorka and his reputation.
Why jou delete today story about v Gorka stance against FF nuke war pushed by neokońs ? 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/30/politics/gorka-leaving-white-house/ 132.116.254.2 ( talk) 12:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sebastian Gorka has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add external citation to : http://www.newsweek.com/gorka-islamic-extremism-terrorism-right-wing-extremists-648754 (verify with these Other reliable sources)
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-remains-silent-following-minnesota-mosque-bombing
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/trump-official-gorka-derided-mosque-attack-claim-170809071507801.html
Sebastian Gorka said there was a series of “fake hate crimes” in recent months, and suggested the White House won't say anything about a bomb attack on a mosque until they know who did it.
“We’ve had a series of crimes committed, alleged hate crimes, by right-wing individuals in the last six months that turned out to actually have been propagated by the left,” he said. “So let’s wait and see and allow local authorities to provide their assessment. And then the White House will make its comments.” CharlesPrice1964 ( talk) 23:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the following:
In addition, he admires white supremacist teachings, believing the Ku Klux Klan is the "strongest advocate against Islamic extremism." "Obama Neuters War on Islamic Terrorists". Accuracy In Media. May 23, 2012. Retrieved June 3, 2016.
...as the given link does not appear to support the claim. There is a BreitBart column where he is quoted as mentioning the KKK; however, that also does not appear to support the claim (even if their quotes are accurate, which given the source seems questionable). Google on the "quoted" phrase turns up no results, even without his name. This would appear to need much, much better sourcing. Abb3w ( talk) 19:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the following sources and the content they were used to support; [10] two are blogs which are poor sources to begin with, and otherwise the conclusions which were being drawn from them likely violates our WP:BLP policies.
-- Kendrick7 talk 04:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Just some recipients of the Order of Vitéz: Vilmos Apor, Géza Lakatos and Vilmos Nagy de Nagybaczon. Yes, they were all Holocaust-perpetrators, indeed. :) -- Norden1990 ( talk) 06:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Gorka, who pledged his loyalty to the United States when he took American citizenship in 2012, is himself a sworn member of the Vitézi Rend, according to both Gyula Soltész — a high-ranking member of the Vitézi Rend’s central apparatus — and Kornél Pintér — a leader of the Vitézi Rend in Western Hungary who befriended Gorka’s father through their activities in the Vitézi Rend. Soltész, who holds a national-level leadership position at the Vitézi Rend, confirmed to the Forward in a phone conversation that Gorka is a full member of the organization. “Of course he was sworn in,” Pintér said, in a phone interview. “I met with him in Sopron [a city near Hungary’s border with Austria]. His father introduced him.”
Since he is no longer listed in Current Fox News Channel anchors and correspondents, should the template be removed? -- There is no mention in the article that he was a regular FOX News contributor (which he was). 07:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Two editors persist in removing material that's reliably sourced and accurately described [11]. One user says that it's POV, even though the content is attributed and uses the same language as the reliable sources. The other user claims that he "introduced and summarized the WAPO article before [I] did", which is meaningless nonsense. The user left out valid content from the WaPo article, content that the editor later scrubbed off of this page when I added it, even though it was validated by a second reliable source. Anyway, what does it have to do with anything that the editor used the WaPo source for something else? In short, there are absolutely no reasons to omit this content from the page: it is accurate, reliably sourced and notable. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This is just to ensure that the editors of this article are aware of this. Layzeeboi ( talk) 05:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The source (a radical leftist BLOG! BTW) state, that: "Hundreds of articles have appeared in the Hungarian media in the last few days about Gorka’s fabulous career. He and his family left Hungary for the United States only nine years ago, and yet he will be an important adviser to the president of the United States. These articles note that he was also an adviser to Viktor Orbán."
Bit vague...
I checked the Hungarian Wiki, and it says that there is no written evidence, whether he was an advisor - seems more like an urbanlegend, than reality. He WAS working for a think-tank, supporting the Orbán gvmt's decisions, that is true, (so, don't know, why it was deleted) but the other thing? I am not so sure about it. -- Ltbuni ( talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
He was wearing a traditional Hungarian coat. -- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed some "material" about plagiarism. Has this been widely covered? Has there been an actual accusation? This doesn't need to be added unless there is consensus for its inclusion. -- Malerooster ( talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Ltbuni has yet again reverted reliably sourced content and justified it through his/her original research. While the research section of Nature Biotechnology is peer-reviewed, the correspondence section is not. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The following doesn’t summarize the Simon and Benjamin article accurately:
Steven Simon, a professor at Amherst College, and Daniel Benjamin, the director of the Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College, have described Gorka as an "islamophobic huckster" and say that he has developed "a reputation as an ill-informed Islamophobe".[35][31] According to Benjamin and Simon, "Gorka sees Islam as the problem, rather than the uses to which Islam has been put by violent extremists. The contrast between them and the policy makers of the previous three presidential administrations could not be clearer: For their predecessors, the key has been to fight terrorists, not assault an Abrahamic religion."[31] Benjamin and Simon also take issue with Gorka’s claim that previous administrations failed to understand the importance of ideology in Islamic militancy, saying that this is a "supremely uninformed and ahistoric claim" and note that declassified government assessments going back nearly 40 years have examined ideology's role in Islamic militancy.
Generally if one can’t summarize an article in one’s own words, one most likely doesn’t understand the article. Quote picking is inherently dangerous, as the quote taken out of context can give a wrong impression. Benjamin and Simon were Bill Clinton’s expert of Islamic terrorism. They were in the process of writing their classic book, “The Age of Sacred Terror” when 9/11 happened. They quickly updated their book and it was one of the first to address the jihadi movement. They review the history of the Salafi movement from ibn Taymiyya to the present.
They rejected Bush’s “Islam is peace” speech saying:
”But neither President’s necessary and useful political speech should obscure the realities of September 11: the motivation for the attack was neither political calculation, strategic advantage, nor wanton bloodlust. It was to humiliate and slaughter those who defied the hegemony of God; it was to please Him by reasserting His primacy. It was an act of cosmic war. What appears to be senseless violence actually made a great deal of sense to the terrorists and their sympathizers, for whom this mass killing was an act of redemption. Only by understanding the religious nature of the attacks of September 11 can we make any sense of their unprecedented scale and their intended effects. …” p.40
Clearly these two see radical Islam as Islamic. Their complaint isn’t that Gorka sees religion as playing a role. Indeed, they believe they were there first! As you rightly noted in your summary the government has “examined ideology's role.” The dismiss Gorka as a Johnny-come-lately: “The suggestion that Mr. Gorka brings new insight is self-gratifying, grandiose malarkey.”
If Gorka and the authors both see Islam as a factor in jihadi dynamics, what makes Gorka’s approach Islamophobic in the authors’ mind? You choose their quote: “Gorka sees Islam as the problem, rather than the uses to which Islam has been put by violent extremists.” But they give no examples of Gorka saying this. Instead they point to Gorka’s statements that other factors are irrelevant. Early in the article they say he dismisses factors “… like poor governance, repression, poverty and war. ‘This is the famous approach that says it is all so nuanced and complicated,’ Mr. Gorka recently told The Washington Post. ‘This is what I completely jettison.’”
Their complain is that Gorka’s analysis is one dimensional and thus over relies on religion as a driver. They return to this in the end: “… an abundance of scholarship on jihadists is that religious doctrine is not their sole or even primary driver. The issues that Mr. Gorka so defiantly ‘jettisons’ actually do play a role.”
This is why I believe a better summary of the article would read:
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon take issue with Gorka’s claim that previous two administrations fail to understand the importance of ideology and they give a number of examples of how government analysts “going back nearly 40 years have examined ideology's role in Islamic militancy.” They argue that by jettisoning the role of “poor governance, repression, poverty and war” and failing to realize that “religious doctrine is not their sole or even primary driver” Gorka has adopted an Islamophobic approach of finding “Islam as the problem, rather than the uses to which Islam has been put by violent extremists.”
Let’s remember that Benjamin and Simon were both part of the Bill Clinton administration. Benjamin was an advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign and it can be assumed that they lost a chance of returning to center of power instead of remaining on the fringes of power. Their criticism isn’t disinterested. Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the short section on the gun charge against the subject due to the following:
Finally, recording such a relatively minor happening detracts from any serious issues that need to be covered in the article, and makes it seem like Wikipedia is trying up dirt rather than neutrally address the issues according to their seriousness and relative WP:DUEWEIGHT. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
While I'll be the first to say that there is no deadline, we probably also need to square with the fact that this is an article that gets between five and thirty five thousand page view a day, and we need to fix ourselves.
So toward that end, I propose we remove the following sentence, which I've already tagged as being off topic:
The Order of Vitéz is listed in the U. S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook under "Organizations Under the Direction of the Nazi Government of Germany," and membership in this group is grounds for denial of a U.S. visa.
At the end of the day, this sentence is entirely about a topic which is not the subject of the article, and if it needs said, it should be said on the main article for the group, and interested readers should be referred there. TimothyJosephWood 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. What about a compromise of simplifying and condensing into a single sentence, changing this:
Gorka was a member of the Order of Vitéz (Hungarian: Vitézi Rend), a hereditary order of merit founded by Miklós Horthy in 1920, by reason of his father having been made a member. The Order of Vitéz is listed in the U. S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook under "Organizations Under the Direction of the Nazi Government of Germany," and membership in this group is grounds for denial of a U.S. visa.
to this:
Gorka was a member of the Order of Vitéz, a group the US State Department lists as a Nazi-linked group.
Much more concise, still hits the high point you seem to be most concerned about. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That experts in the field are declaring that his PhD thesis would never be credited at a reputable academic institution and that it wouldn't even be accepted as an undergrad thesis, is absolutely essential information for an individual who claims to be an expert and whose lede brandishes his doctorate and talks about his specialization on the topics of "irregular warfare, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism". This is not something that academics would say lightly. It's doing the readers a disservice to omit this information, and hide it as a reference under a general "a number of academics and policy-makers questioning both Gorka's knowledge of foreign policy issues and his professional behavior." They are not merely questioning his knowledge, but his academic credentials. It adds something new. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article cover the story by The Forward regarding Gorka and antisemitism?
TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
right-wing blog and a "contributor blog"to what exactly are you referring? TimothyJosephWood 01:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
* I have been limited by my IPhone from fully participating. I have grave BLP concerns with our relaying the insinuations of the Forward article. Let me first disclose that this is a recurring concern of mine. I spent many edits removing "guilt by association" insinuations from the Margaret Sanger article but there I have the help of several books that assure us she did not share the views of the people with whom she associated. As Gorka is not a historical figure we do not yet have such dispassionate scholarship. This is why we have added imperatives with BLPs.
We need to be mindful of the context of post-Communist societies. Many with shady pasts pop up along the political spectrum whether they bring prejudices or past associations with evil doers. In Russia it is impossible to do major business transactions without dealing directly or indirectly with former Communists such as the ex-KGB guy who heads the country. The ex-Communist nations are struggling with a painful transition.
The Forward article is clearly a one-sided hit job. Notice that they do not mention any factors that might throw doubt on their insinuations, such as Gorka writing for hyper-Zionist organizations like the Gatestone Institute. In this time of mud-slinging partisanship we should hold off covering these insinuations in a BLP. We are not a newspaper let alone a gossip column. We aspire to be an encyclopedia. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
We are in the middle of a dispute resolution. Before we reach agreement, I would like to ask everyone, especially Volunteer MArek to refrain from deletion. 1. This article itself states that he was wearing the "Tunic of the Ordr of Vitéz" 2. The HILL is a newspaper etc... So, please re-insert the content.-- Ltbuni ( talk) 15:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's avoid edit-warring and discuss how we should summarize controversy in the lead. There seems to be both critics and defenders. I believe both should be mentioned. Jason from nyc ( talk) 12:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, Snooganssnoogans, I'll start. The first articles to come out were critical of Gorka. Thus, we summarized them as appropriate. Now we have articles "answering" those criticisms and are generally supportive of Gorka. It's appropriate that we summarize both as there is now controversy. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
fringes of Washington to the center of power, that is fringes, as in the outskirts or periphery of something, not the ideological/political/pseudo-scientific sense of WP:FRINGE. The BI source uses the term a single time, quoting an anonymous source.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following text be included in the article?:
In February 2017, the Forward reported that while Gorka was active in Hungarian politics, he had "close ties then to Hungarian far-right circles". The Forward also reported that he "has in the past chosen to work with openly racist and anti-Semitic groups and public figures." The Forward found that "Gorka’s involvement with the far right includes co-founding a political party with former prominent members of Jobbik, a political party with a well-known history of anti-Semitism; repeatedly publishing articles in a newspaper known for its anti-Semitic and racist content; and attending events with some of Hungary’s most notorious extreme-right figures." Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt issued a statement calling on Gorka to "make it clear that he disavows the message and outlook of far-right parties such as Jobbik, which has a long history of stoking anti-Semitism in Hungary.”
The text is sourced to this article by the Forward [17]. Pinging editors who commented on the previous malformed RfC: User:MjolnirPants User:Ltbuni User:Volunteer Marek User:Timothyjosephwood User:Jason from nyc User:Neutrality User:DrFleischman User:Mikalra User:Cullen328 User:Pincrete User:Winkelvi Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Exclude, Lili Bayer is a leftist propagandist, she is just unable to make diference between right and radical right. People in Hungary, even leftist journals laugh at her ignorance. Check the latest issue of Magyar Narancs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.225.206.77 ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment There is a very large amount of space in this article devoted to his alleged anti-Semitism. I have no opinion on whether that amount of space is justified, but I suggest that restraint be shown and that the allegations be stated in summary style. Right now there is a serious neutrality question that needs to be addressed, as indicated by two tags. Also, when
WP:V says "multiple" tags sources, it is not referring to one source cited in multiple sources, as I understand the policy.
Coretheapple (
talk)
13:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, we have Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon describing Gorka as Islamophobic. A few paragraphs down we have The New York Times describing him as Islamophobic, which cites the same Benjamin and Simon article. Finally, we have Max Boot linking to the Benjamin and Simon article and citing it. Once is enough! Jason from nyc ( talk) 23:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It's clear that the Foreign Policy article of Max Boot wasn't accessible by the editors since it is behind a subscription wall. I've now read the article and there is nothing there but a hyperlink to the Benjamin and Simon article which we already discuss in detail. Boot isn't providing further analysis but simply deferring to a source we already have. Now that we can go pass the results of a Google search, we should remove this "undue" repetition. Jason from nyc ( talk) 10:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This article had page protection due to vandalism, and as soon as it expired there was additional vandalism. I think it would be best left to registered users. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
A 2007 video this time: [25]. Zero talk 02:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the "v" (for "von") in the lede definition which has been present since the article start (which may very well have been supplied by Gorka himself or a close associate) as both unsourced and contentious.
This title has been the subject of some speculation on this page as well as extensive comment in both social and main stream media in connection with Gorka's putative membership of a Hungarian political group that awarded his father the honor. The issue it contentious because this group in its original incarnation was certainly antisemitic and complicit in crimes against humanity. Gorka defends his occasional use of the title (for example in his PhD thesis, there are altogether three sources I am aware of that use the title) as honoring his father. However he evidently uses it seldom, and not for example in his most well known best-selling book. I find plausible the argument put forward on this page that a foreign honorific title, if that is what is, should in any case have been renounced as part of his US naturalization.
It is plainly contentious and at present unsourced in the article. As such it should be removed from the lede definition. I'm open to editors here inserting a reference to it in the article, but for reasons of weight it should not be part of the definition, and moreover it begs the question of its bona fide status. 138.199.64.74 ( talk) 05:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it´s pretty clear that this is not how he is commonly referred to in reliable sources (though some RS have), so users should definitely stop adding "L. v." to the title of the article or the initial bolded part. But what about adding it as an "also known as" or "sometimes referred to" in the parentheses following his name? It is after all how Gorka has often times referred to himself in public (e.g. testimonies, op-eds, dissertation). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language. Since the subject is legally American by citizenship, and apparently British by birth, there may be a good argument to make that it's not appropriate here. However, since he is apparently ethnically Hungarian, educated in Hungary, and served in the Hungarian government, there's also probably a good argument to be had to the contrary. Overall it's pretty debatable. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I've been looking at this Vitezi business. While I agree with the article's templater that the affair is given too much weight, I do now agree with
Essess initiating this thread that Gorka using the style "v." ought to be mentioned. Not only did he use it in his PhD, but he has also rather curiously used it in
Congress testimony. Moreover
Seb has
uploaded a flattering image of himself to Commons where he graciously vees himself. I think all that should be recorded in the Vitez section consistent with the
MOS:CREDENTIAL guideline
Timothy mentions. As a matter of interest, can anyone furnish examples of other holders of the order (other than Seb and his Dad) styling with a vee like this? Looking at the
Order of Vitéz article the appropriate style would appear to be as in HIRH Archduke vitéz
Archduke Josef Arpád of Austria. Is the unadorned vee a Gorka invention (erm... perhaps we could call it
"dining off the V"
)?
Larvatus v. Prodeo (
talk)
14:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The material on Medgyessy strikes me as somewhat inconsequential since it only remarks "he [Gorka] attempted to serve as an official expert ..." without offering any explanation of the implication that the attempt was unsuccessful.
In fact the second citation [Balogh] in the article explains he was denied security clearance because it was felt that Gorka was a spy working for British counterintelligence.
Surely that should be included? Larvatus v. Prodeo ( talk) 12:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Mystery Wikipedia User 'Sk-Gorka' Edits Articles About WH Aide Sebastian Gorka.
No further comment. -- llywrch ( talk) 16:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
There are reports that his claims of what he did in the British Territorial Army are either not true or unverified. [26] Since there's a lot of discussion on this page I wanted to put it here before editing the article. Thoughts? -- AW ( talk) 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned above that I had red-linked Paul Gorka (Seb's dad) and time permitting would provide a stub. Paul is notable in his own right and verifiable in multiple sources. He is the author of a well-received memoir describing his opposition as a student to the Soviet occupation of Hungary.
Paul claimed that he was betrayed by Kim Philby and this is a view that has been promoted uncritically by Seb, but that claim has always been regarded as dubious by the UK intel community (for which I can provide a reliable source). It's worth mentioning I think that the user Sk-gorka referenced in the media attention template that heads this page uncritically repeated the claim in their edits, a claim that has since deleted. In my stub I shall address the issue in accordance with Wikipedia's fact-checking mission confirmed by Katherine Maher. Larvatus v. Prodeo ( talk) 17:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I'm going to be able to provide a stub of any significance over Easter. Here's some sources for those who might like to have a go (Tim? aspiring wikilawyers even?) Paul Gorka's book (which I can't lay hands on) is cited in the article along with Seb's talk about it. Here are links:
There are scattered references to Paul Gorka in the literature about the Hungarian diaspora. Here is a reference in a 1996 Indie article:
That Kim Philby betrayed Gorka is discussed in a number of sources. This source I mentioned questions the story. A useful stub template would be {{Hungary-bio-stub}} Larvatus v. Prodeo ( talk) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Reynolds's opinion piece has been given undue weight in the Controversy/Credentials subsection of the article. Particularly in a controversy over academic credentials we should not be relying on opinion pieces for facts. This isn't supposed to be a an anti-Gorka polemic. Motsebboh ( talk) 17:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Let it go? The same day I make my original comment a discussion "consensus" has fully formed? Doesn't sound as if there were a lot of deliberation here. The only thing I'm defending Gorka from is poor editing in his Wikipedia article. Nomoskedasticity brings up this quote from WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". Yes, Reynolds' OPINION piece may be considered more reliable more reliable and "reflect a [more] significant viewpoint" than some letter writer published in Haaretz. That's why we are free to use it as opinion in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we should be using it as the main source of factual information about Gorka's credentials, and particularly not given its highly polemical style. Motsebboh ( talk) 14:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC) PS: Regarding my comment to Andrevan: "You've been an administrator here for ten years. Good God!!! How'd you get in?" No, I shouldn't have said it. Instead I should have asked him to produce an edit that I had made to the article that "whitewashed" the subject or a comment on the Talk page that was "soapboxing". Motsebboh ( talk) 15:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
We've discussed this before. Merely going a Google search for sources who use a word like "fringe" isn't research. The sources use it in different senses. Some use it to question the reception of Gorka's work by peers. Others use it to refer to the fact that he was not part of the Washington establishment but is now at its center. User:Timothyjosephwood eloquently pointed out that the usage is different than in our WP:FRINGE usage. We've discussed this before. We actually have to read the source before citing them. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
"Even Gorka’s attendance poses a mystery. When exactly was he a graduate student at the university? Did he take classes? Did he receive any training in Islam or Islamic studies? His CV notes that he left Hungary in 2004 to work for the US Defense Department in Germany and then in 2008 relocated to the US. There is no evidence that he ever returned to live and study in Budapest." : http://reynolds.web.unc.edu/gorka/
Gorka’s claim to the title of “Professor” rests either on (a) whether the title is appropriate to administrative positions in military training institutions, or (b) whether the title is appropriate to a former adjunct at Georgetown. The latter is plausible, but if admitted it would accord the title to all who accept an adjunct position, and arguably to every graduate student who has accepted a teaching assistantship. The Kokkalis fellowship is a student summer grant, and clearly doesn't fit here. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The Forward writes that, in a 2007 video, Gorka declared his support for the Magyar Garda. The Forward is a reliable source. Another editor questions whether the Forward’s reporting is correct, but that’s irrelevant until we have reliable sources correcting The Forward. The passage reads:
The guard was formed in 2007, August. Gorka left Hungary in 2008. The guard turned to radical right later. It was banned in 2009-- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The Forward is simply lying. The Hungarian version of the record actually says the opposite. It was revealed by Hungarian historians, one of them is some editor in chief of the Jewish weekly, Sabbath. The other one haas its own wikipage: Krisztián Ungváry Previously we accepted the Breitbart on the basis of "it is the content, that matters". Pls see above. Gorka said something - it was published in Breitbart - so we accepted it as a source. If the experts of Hungarian history chose the breitbart.com to express their opinion,as a signal to the Forward, that it is enough, we must not qualify it as "unreliable" etc.-- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The other sources were simply the echoes of the Forward: no names, no organisations, etc.-- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Additional references for Gorka’s involvement with the Magyar Garda:
Though most of the reporting depends on The Forward story, it is accepted by many top news organizations and by the statements of numerous Congressmen. The purported refutation in Breitbart is not. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
No one here is debating whether Breitbart is a reliable source. This has been discussed by the community at the appropriate place, and it is not. Wikipedia does not publish original research, or material found only in inappropriate sources. Similarly, your personal impressions of the intentions of the founders of the Magyar Garda are interesting but not relevant to writing a Wikipedia article. Nor are your personal observations about the videos pertinent; we cover what reliable sources have reported. RedState, a partisan web sit, is also not a reliable source. If your research shows that The Forward was mistaken, I am confident that the editor of The Forward would be interested in hearing from you. So would editors at the Washington Post, NY Times, and many other reliable sources. After you have published there, Wikipedia will be able to use the results of your conjecture; not before.
MarkBernstein (
talk)
17:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor has proposed Wikipedia omit all information supplied on background to newspapers and other media ("anonymous sources") in order to suppress a widely reported, paraphrased quotation that might embarrass the subject. This would be, in my view, a drastic policy change for Wikipedia -- one which the extreme right wing in American politics has been calling for in recent months, but also one which would further discredit the project’s already disastrous reputation. I doubt that this is the ideal place to enact such a drastic policy change. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia have omitted any coverage of the Washington Post’s reporting on Watergate, since it was based on an anonymous source? Shall we also delete every White House statement issued on background? As I said, this would be a very radical change to Wikipedia, requiring immediate changes to thousands of biographies -- many of which are under discretionary sanctions. And all those changes could be made under BLPEXCEPT. Let a thousand edit wars bloom?
MarkBernstein (
talk)
23:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Would like to include a transcript of his July 11, 2017 interview with CNN's New Day (TV series) with Alisyn Camerota in which he addresses Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russian lawyer and President Trump's meeting at G20 with Putin.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 12:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Should subject be included in this list? Thoughts? X4n6 ( talk) 21:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sebastian Gorka has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add external citation to : http://www.newsweek.com/gorka-islamic-extremism-terrorism-right-wing-extremists-648754 (verify with these Other reliable sources)
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-remains-silent-following-minnesota-mosque-bombing
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/trump-official-gorka-derided-mosque-attack-claim-170809071507801.html
Sebastian Gorka said there was a series of “fake hate crimes” in recent months, and suggested the White House won't say anything about a bomb attack on a mosque until they know who did it.
“We’ve had a series of crimes committed, alleged hate crimes, by right-wing individuals in the last six months that turned out to actually have been propagated by the left,” he said. “So let’s wait and see and allow local authorities to provide their assessment. And then the White House will make its comments.” CharlesPrice1964 ( talk) 23:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The deletion of the article is being contested. This was the body of the article at time of deletion with full citations. Sources can be found on my talk page. As a result of the article deletion, I entered the content under Sebastian's Personal section and it was deleted promptly with the deleting editor stating that this was a page about him and not his wife. See revision history. Body of BLP of Katharina Gorka deleted article;
copy-paste of twice-deleted article collapsed
|
---|
Katharine Fairfax (Cornell) Gorka is the wife of Sebastian Gorka and a former member of President Donald Trump's transition team.[1] Her parents, M Keen Cornell and Mortimer Ryon lived in Pennsylvania.[2] After graduating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,[2] she earned a Master's Degree from the London School of Economics in the early 1990s before meeting Sebastian in Romania in 1994.[3] They married in Hungary's St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church in Sopron in 1996. At the time, she was the regional director of the National Forum Foundation.[2] In 2003, she and her husband founded the Institute for Transitional Democracy and International Security in Budapest, Hungary.[4][5] In 2009, she was the executive director of The Westminster Institute, a think tank that focused on threats from extremism and radical ideologies.[6] In March 2016, she became the foreign policy advisor to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz.[5] On November 29, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump chose Gorka to be part of his "landing team" tasked with meeting President Barack Obama's officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),[7] an agency she had publically criticized in the past through articles on Breitbart News and other outlets.[8] During this period, she told DHS officials in charge of the Countering Violent Extremism Task Force (CVE) that it would likely be renamed "Countering Radical Islam" or "Countering Violent Jihad".[9] She became a policy advisor at DHS on April 7, 2017.[3][10] Because of Gorka's openness about her anti-Islam views, her role in the administration has been controversial.[1] Along with President Donald Trump aides, she worked to eliminate a CEV grant to Life After Hate, a group that opposes white supremacy. When the list of new CEV grant recipients was released June 23, 2017, Life After Hate was not included. This decision drew significant attention when a 20 year-old white supremacist attacked a group protesting the Unite the Right rally less than two months later, killing one.[1] She is the author of Cornell Iron Works: The History of an Enduring Family Business and co-edited Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamismwith Patrick Sookhdeo.[11][12] |
I find it unfathomable that these factual details, or at least some, would not be a part of an encyclopedic wikipedia and arouses my suspicion of forces at play.
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 12:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please elevate or act accordingly. No problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipietime ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
For additional reference, this is a recap of deleted article;
https://wiki2.org/en/Katharine_Gorka
that features an interesting interview with Ms. Gorka.
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 19:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Also two of her works should be attributed to her;
She is the author of Cornell Iron Works: The History of an Enduring Family Business and co-edited Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism with Patrick Sookhdeo.
Would someone make the addition? I am staying out of the article.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC) She is the author of Cornell Iron Works: The History of an Enduring Family Business and co-edited Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism with Patrick Sookhdeo.
This garbage is now considered a reliable source? Is that what Wikipedia has sunk to? Thismightbezach ( talk) 03:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/katharine-gorka-life-after-hate_us_59921356e4b09096429943b6
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-national-security-gorka-234950
Note to deleting editors; your more than welcome to engage on discussion on my talk page. Bullying has no place in civil society. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 16:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Research complete, article for wikipedia forthcoming. The creation of this article will be clocked for record speedy deletion tagging. On your marks!-- Wikipietime ( talk) 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Needs external Link reference since it was jointly established.
http://www.westminster-institute.org/videos/
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 20:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
a lot of interesting a relevant facts are obtainable at;
https://web.archive.org/web/20150403013900/http://thegorkabriefing.com
at least a link or mention to the site seems appropriate.
“All those who have brought death to our shores as al Qaeda operatives have done so not out of purely political conviction but clearly as a result of the fact that they feel transcendentally justified, that they see their violent deeds as sanctioned by God. If we wish to combat the ideology that drives these murderers, we ignore the role of religion at our peril.” —Dr. Sebastian Gorka’s Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There's already enough out there to go on, but after his views as reported here... https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-adviser-says-people-should-stop-criticizing-white-supremacists-so-much-ddd587767d60/amp/ ...and that article was published just 2 days before the events in Charlottesville, we'd be failing if we didn't have a lot about his views on white supremacists. Boscaswell talk 09:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Gorka said he supported an armed militia in response to the police beating protestors during the 2006 protests in Hungary. I'm now being attacked for posting his remarks in full context. Wikipedia bias. Thismightbezach ( talk) 19:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This is obviously a self-article. It is not illegal, of course, but it is also not very nice, to say the minimum.-- Szilas ( talk) 08:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Anon3579: Okay. This is a complicated issue, but Wikipedia has fairly strict policies on how we cover living people: WP:BLP. We also have guidelines restricting how we use WP:PRIMARY sources, and court documents are definitely primary sources. The case number is valid, and can be looked up, although Virginia's website doesn't make it particularly easy. That said, court documents are notoriously difficult to properly assess for meaning and due weight, and nothing remotely controversial should be supported only by a primary source. Since this appears to be a minor issue, better sources are needed before going into depth.
@ 2250yset: I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're the same editor as Ccherzog, is that right? Judging by the past history of very promotional editing here, I'm also willing to bet that you're Sk-gorka. Considering that this is a BLP issue, I think some slack can be given, but creating a new account just to continue edit warring is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's policies, and I hope it's obvious why. I understand why this might be frustrating, but using a misleading edit summary is transparently deceptive and shows contempt for Wikipedia as a website, which makes it much harder to work with you. Editing with a conflict of interest is itself also a big problem, which has already been explained on at least one account's talk page. Please clearly explain what's going on, otherwise all three accounts are likely to be blocked. Do you understand?
No matter how much you undermine your own credibility here with these antics, even if blocked, if you are notable enough to be discussed, you are entitled to neutral coverage according to Wikipedia's policies. If you have a problem with content about yourself, the best way to fix it is by raising it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. There admins and other experienced editors can help you, and the issue will almost certainly be seen and handled much more quickly than if you try and handle it yourself. Grayfell ( talk) 02:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I used to be highly active on Wikipedia (clearly, I am not active as I struggled to remember how to outdent). I happened upon this article, wondering who Sebastian Gorka is after reading something about him on Fox News.
I am both amused and dismayed to find the article had to be locked down due to edit warring over a rather simple issue. If my 2¢ helps at all, this Google search on “Sebastian Gorka gun” yielded a few hits dating to February of this year. One of them is to an RS, The Washington Post ( this article).
Too often, wikipedians take it upon themselves to be intrepid cub reporters Changing the World©®™® and this leads—among many types of issues—to misguided efforts to bring to light all manner of information the wikipedian believes is encyclopedically relevant. Single-purpose accounts, such as User:2250yset are not infrequently dedicated to ensuring Wikipedia articles conform to their personal interests and world view. It's a prescription for edit warring, in which case, we look towards established policy, which is a tortuous product of consensus.
IMHO, we should look towards RSs like The Washington Post. The totality of what sort of coverage there is on a topic like the gun charge, how much of it there is, and when it was last in the news should guide us as wikipedians when deciding what is encyclopedically germane and how much emphasis to place on a given topic.
All things considered, the current version (perma-link as of this writing) seems like the issue of the gun charges is encyclopedic and has due weight. There is no undo weight given to the incident via such means as a separate sub-heading titled “Gun charges”, and there isn’t undo dwelling on the subject.
If, a few years down the road into the Trump administration, the RSs seem to be ignoring the gun-charge issue, we should consider dropping mention of the incident as possible agenda pushing. For the moment, the current treatment seems appropriate. Greg L ( talk) 22:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I am going to ask a dispute resolution. -- Ltbuni ( talk) 17:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I was asked to weigh in on this conversation by Ltbuni because I mediated a dispute involving them on another article...probably a few months ago. So here are my thoughts:
To be clear, we're here discussing the links drawn by an article in Forward and followed up by several other media sources, leading to a statement by the Anti-Defamation League cited in Haaretz, yes? Forward is a long-established and credible Jewish newspaper in New York, albeit one with a clear leftist bent, and Haaretz is a serious newspaper; the willingness of several other credible sources already cited by Snooganssnoogans to cite the Forward story without qualification as to source support its credibility, as does the resulting statement by the ADL on the question of anti-semitism. The ADL statement is in any case noteworthy. Disputing these sources as such doesn't seem reasonable I see that Timothy has put this over to WP:BLPN; is this actually a standard dispute resolution method? No one has replied in two days; are we just waiting, or what? Mikalra ( talk) 18:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans and I have been edit-warring and we've been unable to settle our differences on the following edits. Using the same sources he writes:
Gorka has been characterized as a fringe figure in academic and policy-making circles. [1] [2] According to the Washington Post, "Gorka’s academic credentials, particularly on the subject of Islam, are thin." [1] The New Yorker describes Gorka as a "a self-styled expert on Islam and terrorism". [3] His published works have not been widely cited among scholars of terrorism and national-security experts. [1] Several experts have questioned both Gorka's knowledge of foreign policy issues and his professional behavior. [1] [2] Stephen M. Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, has described Gorka as an "oddball". [4] Max Boot, the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, has described Gorka as an "anti-Muslim extremist". [5] According to the New York Times, some have described Gorka as being part of "the Islamophobia industry, a network of researchers who have warned for many years of the dangers of Islam". [6]
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
and I write, using the same sources, (with a heading “Views on terrorism")
Greg Jaffe, of the Washington Post, argues that Gorka’s views “signal a radical break” from the discourse “defined by the city’s Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite” of the last 16 years. Both Bush and Obama rejected the notion that Islam had anything to do with terrorism. Gorka rejects the opposing view, that the driving force of terror is “repression, alienation, torture, tribalism, poverty” or foreign interference. Inspired by Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order and by Bernard Lewis' Roots of Muslim rage, he thinks that “the power that [a] religion can have or a distortion of religion” is central to understanding the jihadi movement. His critics argue this approach could alienate Muslim allies. Gorka’s viewpoint was influenced by his comparison of Islamism to other totalitarian movements, where ideology played a central role. [1] Pamela Engel, of the Business Insider, notes that Gorka has many critics but some “in the national-security community have defended Gorka.” [2]
References
wapo170220
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).My problem with Snooganssnoogans’ edit is that it is essentially labeling and name-calling by Gorka’s political opponents. They label him “fringe,” “self-styled,” “oddball,” “extremist,” and add vague charges that question his expertise without explanation. My approach is to describe his views and the views of his critics. I explain how they differ. I also note his views were not in favor during the Bush-Obama years. But his idea that religious ideology plays are role was accepted by Bill Clinton’s staff as seen by their book [8] and by our reference to the pre-Bush experts Lewis and Huntington. I believe this flushes out what they are calling “oddball” and “fringe” among other pejoratives. I’d like a third opinion if someone can help us reach a consensus. Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence of this entry says, "Sebastian Lukács Gorkais...is an American military and intelligence analyst who works for the National Security Advisor."
According to National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Gorka does not work for him or the National Security Council. (NBC's Meet The Press, August 13, 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalbrian ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The initial section of the article is currently far too detailed. Per WP:LEAD, it's supposed to be a summary of the important aspects of topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"Lukacs von Gorka" ? I am not sure that it is correct. Verification/Source needed. Fakirbakir ( talk) 17:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The middle name is here, and his PhD thesis has " Sebastian L. v. Gorka" and a monograph for the University of Central Florida " [9]". He has also gone by "Sebastian von Gorka" elsewhere, like in this 2016 radio appearance. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 20:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the 'v' is adopted by oathed members of the Vitezi Rend. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/03/a_top_trump_aide_has_been_strongly_linked_to_a_nazi_group.html Khamba Tendal ( talk) 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be making the political act of removing the "v" just because it is politically awkward for Mr. Gorka and his reputation.
Why jou delete today story about v Gorka stance against FF nuke war pushed by neokońs ? 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/30/politics/gorka-leaving-white-house/ 132.116.254.2 ( talk) 12:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sebastian Gorka has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add external citation to : http://www.newsweek.com/gorka-islamic-extremism-terrorism-right-wing-extremists-648754 (verify with these Other reliable sources)
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-remains-silent-following-minnesota-mosque-bombing
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/trump-official-gorka-derided-mosque-attack-claim-170809071507801.html
Sebastian Gorka said there was a series of “fake hate crimes” in recent months, and suggested the White House won't say anything about a bomb attack on a mosque until they know who did it.
“We’ve had a series of crimes committed, alleged hate crimes, by right-wing individuals in the last six months that turned out to actually have been propagated by the left,” he said. “So let’s wait and see and allow local authorities to provide their assessment. And then the White House will make its comments.” CharlesPrice1964 ( talk) 23:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the following:
In addition, he admires white supremacist teachings, believing the Ku Klux Klan is the "strongest advocate against Islamic extremism." "Obama Neuters War on Islamic Terrorists". Accuracy In Media. May 23, 2012. Retrieved June 3, 2016.
...as the given link does not appear to support the claim. There is a BreitBart column where he is quoted as mentioning the KKK; however, that also does not appear to support the claim (even if their quotes are accurate, which given the source seems questionable). Google on the "quoted" phrase turns up no results, even without his name. This would appear to need much, much better sourcing. Abb3w ( talk) 19:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the following sources and the content they were used to support; [10] two are blogs which are poor sources to begin with, and otherwise the conclusions which were being drawn from them likely violates our WP:BLP policies.
-- Kendrick7 talk 04:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Just some recipients of the Order of Vitéz: Vilmos Apor, Géza Lakatos and Vilmos Nagy de Nagybaczon. Yes, they were all Holocaust-perpetrators, indeed. :) -- Norden1990 ( talk) 06:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Gorka, who pledged his loyalty to the United States when he took American citizenship in 2012, is himself a sworn member of the Vitézi Rend, according to both Gyula Soltész — a high-ranking member of the Vitézi Rend’s central apparatus — and Kornél Pintér — a leader of the Vitézi Rend in Western Hungary who befriended Gorka’s father through their activities in the Vitézi Rend. Soltész, who holds a national-level leadership position at the Vitézi Rend, confirmed to the Forward in a phone conversation that Gorka is a full member of the organization. “Of course he was sworn in,” Pintér said, in a phone interview. “I met with him in Sopron [a city near Hungary’s border with Austria]. His father introduced him.”
Since he is no longer listed in Current Fox News Channel anchors and correspondents, should the template be removed? -- There is no mention in the article that he was a regular FOX News contributor (which he was). 07:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Two editors persist in removing material that's reliably sourced and accurately described [11]. One user says that it's POV, even though the content is attributed and uses the same language as the reliable sources. The other user claims that he "introduced and summarized the WAPO article before [I] did", which is meaningless nonsense. The user left out valid content from the WaPo article, content that the editor later scrubbed off of this page when I added it, even though it was validated by a second reliable source. Anyway, what does it have to do with anything that the editor used the WaPo source for something else? In short, there are absolutely no reasons to omit this content from the page: it is accurate, reliably sourced and notable. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This is just to ensure that the editors of this article are aware of this. Layzeeboi ( talk) 05:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The source (a radical leftist BLOG! BTW) state, that: "Hundreds of articles have appeared in the Hungarian media in the last few days about Gorka’s fabulous career. He and his family left Hungary for the United States only nine years ago, and yet he will be an important adviser to the president of the United States. These articles note that he was also an adviser to Viktor Orbán."
Bit vague...
I checked the Hungarian Wiki, and it says that there is no written evidence, whether he was an advisor - seems more like an urbanlegend, than reality. He WAS working for a think-tank, supporting the Orbán gvmt's decisions, that is true, (so, don't know, why it was deleted) but the other thing? I am not so sure about it. -- Ltbuni ( talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
He was wearing a traditional Hungarian coat. -- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed some "material" about plagiarism. Has this been widely covered? Has there been an actual accusation? This doesn't need to be added unless there is consensus for its inclusion. -- Malerooster ( talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Ltbuni has yet again reverted reliably sourced content and justified it through his/her original research. While the research section of Nature Biotechnology is peer-reviewed, the correspondence section is not. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The following doesn’t summarize the Simon and Benjamin article accurately:
Steven Simon, a professor at Amherst College, and Daniel Benjamin, the director of the Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College, have described Gorka as an "islamophobic huckster" and say that he has developed "a reputation as an ill-informed Islamophobe".[35][31] According to Benjamin and Simon, "Gorka sees Islam as the problem, rather than the uses to which Islam has been put by violent extremists. The contrast between them and the policy makers of the previous three presidential administrations could not be clearer: For their predecessors, the key has been to fight terrorists, not assault an Abrahamic religion."[31] Benjamin and Simon also take issue with Gorka’s claim that previous administrations failed to understand the importance of ideology in Islamic militancy, saying that this is a "supremely uninformed and ahistoric claim" and note that declassified government assessments going back nearly 40 years have examined ideology's role in Islamic militancy.
Generally if one can’t summarize an article in one’s own words, one most likely doesn’t understand the article. Quote picking is inherently dangerous, as the quote taken out of context can give a wrong impression. Benjamin and Simon were Bill Clinton’s expert of Islamic terrorism. They were in the process of writing their classic book, “The Age of Sacred Terror” when 9/11 happened. They quickly updated their book and it was one of the first to address the jihadi movement. They review the history of the Salafi movement from ibn Taymiyya to the present.
They rejected Bush’s “Islam is peace” speech saying:
”But neither President’s necessary and useful political speech should obscure the realities of September 11: the motivation for the attack was neither political calculation, strategic advantage, nor wanton bloodlust. It was to humiliate and slaughter those who defied the hegemony of God; it was to please Him by reasserting His primacy. It was an act of cosmic war. What appears to be senseless violence actually made a great deal of sense to the terrorists and their sympathizers, for whom this mass killing was an act of redemption. Only by understanding the religious nature of the attacks of September 11 can we make any sense of their unprecedented scale and their intended effects. …” p.40
Clearly these two see radical Islam as Islamic. Their complaint isn’t that Gorka sees religion as playing a role. Indeed, they believe they were there first! As you rightly noted in your summary the government has “examined ideology's role.” The dismiss Gorka as a Johnny-come-lately: “The suggestion that Mr. Gorka brings new insight is self-gratifying, grandiose malarkey.”
If Gorka and the authors both see Islam as a factor in jihadi dynamics, what makes Gorka’s approach Islamophobic in the authors’ mind? You choose their quote: “Gorka sees Islam as the problem, rather than the uses to which Islam has been put by violent extremists.” But they give no examples of Gorka saying this. Instead they point to Gorka’s statements that other factors are irrelevant. Early in the article they say he dismisses factors “… like poor governance, repression, poverty and war. ‘This is the famous approach that says it is all so nuanced and complicated,’ Mr. Gorka recently told The Washington Post. ‘This is what I completely jettison.’”
Their complain is that Gorka’s analysis is one dimensional and thus over relies on religion as a driver. They return to this in the end: “… an abundance of scholarship on jihadists is that religious doctrine is not their sole or even primary driver. The issues that Mr. Gorka so defiantly ‘jettisons’ actually do play a role.”
This is why I believe a better summary of the article would read:
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon take issue with Gorka’s claim that previous two administrations fail to understand the importance of ideology and they give a number of examples of how government analysts “going back nearly 40 years have examined ideology's role in Islamic militancy.” They argue that by jettisoning the role of “poor governance, repression, poverty and war” and failing to realize that “religious doctrine is not their sole or even primary driver” Gorka has adopted an Islamophobic approach of finding “Islam as the problem, rather than the uses to which Islam has been put by violent extremists.”
Let’s remember that Benjamin and Simon were both part of the Bill Clinton administration. Benjamin was an advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign and it can be assumed that they lost a chance of returning to center of power instead of remaining on the fringes of power. Their criticism isn’t disinterested. Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the short section on the gun charge against the subject due to the following:
Finally, recording such a relatively minor happening detracts from any serious issues that need to be covered in the article, and makes it seem like Wikipedia is trying up dirt rather than neutrally address the issues according to their seriousness and relative WP:DUEWEIGHT. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
While I'll be the first to say that there is no deadline, we probably also need to square with the fact that this is an article that gets between five and thirty five thousand page view a day, and we need to fix ourselves.
So toward that end, I propose we remove the following sentence, which I've already tagged as being off topic:
The Order of Vitéz is listed in the U. S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook under "Organizations Under the Direction of the Nazi Government of Germany," and membership in this group is grounds for denial of a U.S. visa.
At the end of the day, this sentence is entirely about a topic which is not the subject of the article, and if it needs said, it should be said on the main article for the group, and interested readers should be referred there. TimothyJosephWood 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. What about a compromise of simplifying and condensing into a single sentence, changing this:
Gorka was a member of the Order of Vitéz (Hungarian: Vitézi Rend), a hereditary order of merit founded by Miklós Horthy in 1920, by reason of his father having been made a member. The Order of Vitéz is listed in the U. S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook under "Organizations Under the Direction of the Nazi Government of Germany," and membership in this group is grounds for denial of a U.S. visa.
to this:
Gorka was a member of the Order of Vitéz, a group the US State Department lists as a Nazi-linked group.
Much more concise, still hits the high point you seem to be most concerned about. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That experts in the field are declaring that his PhD thesis would never be credited at a reputable academic institution and that it wouldn't even be accepted as an undergrad thesis, is absolutely essential information for an individual who claims to be an expert and whose lede brandishes his doctorate and talks about his specialization on the topics of "irregular warfare, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism". This is not something that academics would say lightly. It's doing the readers a disservice to omit this information, and hide it as a reference under a general "a number of academics and policy-makers questioning both Gorka's knowledge of foreign policy issues and his professional behavior." They are not merely questioning his knowledge, but his academic credentials. It adds something new. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article cover the story by The Forward regarding Gorka and antisemitism?
TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
right-wing blog and a "contributor blog"to what exactly are you referring? TimothyJosephWood 01:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
* I have been limited by my IPhone from fully participating. I have grave BLP concerns with our relaying the insinuations of the Forward article. Let me first disclose that this is a recurring concern of mine. I spent many edits removing "guilt by association" insinuations from the Margaret Sanger article but there I have the help of several books that assure us she did not share the views of the people with whom she associated. As Gorka is not a historical figure we do not yet have such dispassionate scholarship. This is why we have added imperatives with BLPs.
We need to be mindful of the context of post-Communist societies. Many with shady pasts pop up along the political spectrum whether they bring prejudices or past associations with evil doers. In Russia it is impossible to do major business transactions without dealing directly or indirectly with former Communists such as the ex-KGB guy who heads the country. The ex-Communist nations are struggling with a painful transition.
The Forward article is clearly a one-sided hit job. Notice that they do not mention any factors that might throw doubt on their insinuations, such as Gorka writing for hyper-Zionist organizations like the Gatestone Institute. In this time of mud-slinging partisanship we should hold off covering these insinuations in a BLP. We are not a newspaper let alone a gossip column. We aspire to be an encyclopedia. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
We are in the middle of a dispute resolution. Before we reach agreement, I would like to ask everyone, especially Volunteer MArek to refrain from deletion. 1. This article itself states that he was wearing the "Tunic of the Ordr of Vitéz" 2. The HILL is a newspaper etc... So, please re-insert the content.-- Ltbuni ( talk) 15:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's avoid edit-warring and discuss how we should summarize controversy in the lead. There seems to be both critics and defenders. I believe both should be mentioned. Jason from nyc ( talk) 12:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, Snooganssnoogans, I'll start. The first articles to come out were critical of Gorka. Thus, we summarized them as appropriate. Now we have articles "answering" those criticisms and are generally supportive of Gorka. It's appropriate that we summarize both as there is now controversy. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
fringes of Washington to the center of power, that is fringes, as in the outskirts or periphery of something, not the ideological/political/pseudo-scientific sense of WP:FRINGE. The BI source uses the term a single time, quoting an anonymous source.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following text be included in the article?:
In February 2017, the Forward reported that while Gorka was active in Hungarian politics, he had "close ties then to Hungarian far-right circles". The Forward also reported that he "has in the past chosen to work with openly racist and anti-Semitic groups and public figures." The Forward found that "Gorka’s involvement with the far right includes co-founding a political party with former prominent members of Jobbik, a political party with a well-known history of anti-Semitism; repeatedly publishing articles in a newspaper known for its anti-Semitic and racist content; and attending events with some of Hungary’s most notorious extreme-right figures." Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt issued a statement calling on Gorka to "make it clear that he disavows the message and outlook of far-right parties such as Jobbik, which has a long history of stoking anti-Semitism in Hungary.”
The text is sourced to this article by the Forward [17]. Pinging editors who commented on the previous malformed RfC: User:MjolnirPants User:Ltbuni User:Volunteer Marek User:Timothyjosephwood User:Jason from nyc User:Neutrality User:DrFleischman User:Mikalra User:Cullen328 User:Pincrete User:Winkelvi Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Exclude, Lili Bayer is a leftist propagandist, she is just unable to make diference between right and radical right. People in Hungary, even leftist journals laugh at her ignorance. Check the latest issue of Magyar Narancs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.225.206.77 ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment There is a very large amount of space in this article devoted to his alleged anti-Semitism. I have no opinion on whether that amount of space is justified, but I suggest that restraint be shown and that the allegations be stated in summary style. Right now there is a serious neutrality question that needs to be addressed, as indicated by two tags. Also, when
WP:V says "multiple" tags sources, it is not referring to one source cited in multiple sources, as I understand the policy.
Coretheapple (
talk)
13:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, we have Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon describing Gorka as Islamophobic. A few paragraphs down we have The New York Times describing him as Islamophobic, which cites the same Benjamin and Simon article. Finally, we have Max Boot linking to the Benjamin and Simon article and citing it. Once is enough! Jason from nyc ( talk) 23:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It's clear that the Foreign Policy article of Max Boot wasn't accessible by the editors since it is behind a subscription wall. I've now read the article and there is nothing there but a hyperlink to the Benjamin and Simon article which we already discuss in detail. Boot isn't providing further analysis but simply deferring to a source we already have. Now that we can go pass the results of a Google search, we should remove this "undue" repetition. Jason from nyc ( talk) 10:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This article had page protection due to vandalism, and as soon as it expired there was additional vandalism. I think it would be best left to registered users. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
A 2007 video this time: [25]. Zero talk 02:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the "v" (for "von") in the lede definition which has been present since the article start (which may very well have been supplied by Gorka himself or a close associate) as both unsourced and contentious.
This title has been the subject of some speculation on this page as well as extensive comment in both social and main stream media in connection with Gorka's putative membership of a Hungarian political group that awarded his father the honor. The issue it contentious because this group in its original incarnation was certainly antisemitic and complicit in crimes against humanity. Gorka defends his occasional use of the title (for example in his PhD thesis, there are altogether three sources I am aware of that use the title) as honoring his father. However he evidently uses it seldom, and not for example in his most well known best-selling book. I find plausible the argument put forward on this page that a foreign honorific title, if that is what is, should in any case have been renounced as part of his US naturalization.
It is plainly contentious and at present unsourced in the article. As such it should be removed from the lede definition. I'm open to editors here inserting a reference to it in the article, but for reasons of weight it should not be part of the definition, and moreover it begs the question of its bona fide status. 138.199.64.74 ( talk) 05:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it´s pretty clear that this is not how he is commonly referred to in reliable sources (though some RS have), so users should definitely stop adding "L. v." to the title of the article or the initial bolded part. But what about adding it as an "also known as" or "sometimes referred to" in the parentheses following his name? It is after all how Gorka has often times referred to himself in public (e.g. testimonies, op-eds, dissertation). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language. Since the subject is legally American by citizenship, and apparently British by birth, there may be a good argument to make that it's not appropriate here. However, since he is apparently ethnically Hungarian, educated in Hungary, and served in the Hungarian government, there's also probably a good argument to be had to the contrary. Overall it's pretty debatable. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I've been looking at this Vitezi business. While I agree with the article's templater that the affair is given too much weight, I do now agree with
Essess initiating this thread that Gorka using the style "v." ought to be mentioned. Not only did he use it in his PhD, but he has also rather curiously used it in
Congress testimony. Moreover
Seb has
uploaded a flattering image of himself to Commons where he graciously vees himself. I think all that should be recorded in the Vitez section consistent with the
MOS:CREDENTIAL guideline
Timothy mentions. As a matter of interest, can anyone furnish examples of other holders of the order (other than Seb and his Dad) styling with a vee like this? Looking at the
Order of Vitéz article the appropriate style would appear to be as in HIRH Archduke vitéz
Archduke Josef Arpád of Austria. Is the unadorned vee a Gorka invention (erm... perhaps we could call it
"dining off the V"
)?
Larvatus v. Prodeo (
talk)
14:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The material on Medgyessy strikes me as somewhat inconsequential since it only remarks "he [Gorka] attempted to serve as an official expert ..." without offering any explanation of the implication that the attempt was unsuccessful.
In fact the second citation [Balogh] in the article explains he was denied security clearance because it was felt that Gorka was a spy working for British counterintelligence.
Surely that should be included? Larvatus v. Prodeo ( talk) 12:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Mystery Wikipedia User 'Sk-Gorka' Edits Articles About WH Aide Sebastian Gorka.
No further comment. -- llywrch ( talk) 16:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
There are reports that his claims of what he did in the British Territorial Army are either not true or unverified. [26] Since there's a lot of discussion on this page I wanted to put it here before editing the article. Thoughts? -- AW ( talk) 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned above that I had red-linked Paul Gorka (Seb's dad) and time permitting would provide a stub. Paul is notable in his own right and verifiable in multiple sources. He is the author of a well-received memoir describing his opposition as a student to the Soviet occupation of Hungary.
Paul claimed that he was betrayed by Kim Philby and this is a view that has been promoted uncritically by Seb, but that claim has always been regarded as dubious by the UK intel community (for which I can provide a reliable source). It's worth mentioning I think that the user Sk-gorka referenced in the media attention template that heads this page uncritically repeated the claim in their edits, a claim that has since deleted. In my stub I shall address the issue in accordance with Wikipedia's fact-checking mission confirmed by Katherine Maher. Larvatus v. Prodeo ( talk) 17:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I'm going to be able to provide a stub of any significance over Easter. Here's some sources for those who might like to have a go (Tim? aspiring wikilawyers even?) Paul Gorka's book (which I can't lay hands on) is cited in the article along with Seb's talk about it. Here are links:
There are scattered references to Paul Gorka in the literature about the Hungarian diaspora. Here is a reference in a 1996 Indie article:
That Kim Philby betrayed Gorka is discussed in a number of sources. This source I mentioned questions the story. A useful stub template would be {{Hungary-bio-stub}} Larvatus v. Prodeo ( talk) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Reynolds's opinion piece has been given undue weight in the Controversy/Credentials subsection of the article. Particularly in a controversy over academic credentials we should not be relying on opinion pieces for facts. This isn't supposed to be a an anti-Gorka polemic. Motsebboh ( talk) 17:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Let it go? The same day I make my original comment a discussion "consensus" has fully formed? Doesn't sound as if there were a lot of deliberation here. The only thing I'm defending Gorka from is poor editing in his Wikipedia article. Nomoskedasticity brings up this quote from WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". Yes, Reynolds' OPINION piece may be considered more reliable more reliable and "reflect a [more] significant viewpoint" than some letter writer published in Haaretz. That's why we are free to use it as opinion in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we should be using it as the main source of factual information about Gorka's credentials, and particularly not given its highly polemical style. Motsebboh ( talk) 14:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC) PS: Regarding my comment to Andrevan: "You've been an administrator here for ten years. Good God!!! How'd you get in?" No, I shouldn't have said it. Instead I should have asked him to produce an edit that I had made to the article that "whitewashed" the subject or a comment on the Talk page that was "soapboxing". Motsebboh ( talk) 15:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
We've discussed this before. Merely going a Google search for sources who use a word like "fringe" isn't research. The sources use it in different senses. Some use it to question the reception of Gorka's work by peers. Others use it to refer to the fact that he was not part of the Washington establishment but is now at its center. User:Timothyjosephwood eloquently pointed out that the usage is different than in our WP:FRINGE usage. We've discussed this before. We actually have to read the source before citing them. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
"Even Gorka’s attendance poses a mystery. When exactly was he a graduate student at the university? Did he take classes? Did he receive any training in Islam or Islamic studies? His CV notes that he left Hungary in 2004 to work for the US Defense Department in Germany and then in 2008 relocated to the US. There is no evidence that he ever returned to live and study in Budapest." : http://reynolds.web.unc.edu/gorka/
Gorka’s claim to the title of “Professor” rests either on (a) whether the title is appropriate to administrative positions in military training institutions, or (b) whether the title is appropriate to a former adjunct at Georgetown. The latter is plausible, but if admitted it would accord the title to all who accept an adjunct position, and arguably to every graduate student who has accepted a teaching assistantship. The Kokkalis fellowship is a student summer grant, and clearly doesn't fit here. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The Forward writes that, in a 2007 video, Gorka declared his support for the Magyar Garda. The Forward is a reliable source. Another editor questions whether the Forward’s reporting is correct, but that’s irrelevant until we have reliable sources correcting The Forward. The passage reads:
The guard was formed in 2007, August. Gorka left Hungary in 2008. The guard turned to radical right later. It was banned in 2009-- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The Forward is simply lying. The Hungarian version of the record actually says the opposite. It was revealed by Hungarian historians, one of them is some editor in chief of the Jewish weekly, Sabbath. The other one haas its own wikipage: Krisztián Ungváry Previously we accepted the Breitbart on the basis of "it is the content, that matters". Pls see above. Gorka said something - it was published in Breitbart - so we accepted it as a source. If the experts of Hungarian history chose the breitbart.com to express their opinion,as a signal to the Forward, that it is enough, we must not qualify it as "unreliable" etc.-- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The other sources were simply the echoes of the Forward: no names, no organisations, etc.-- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Additional references for Gorka’s involvement with the Magyar Garda:
Though most of the reporting depends on The Forward story, it is accepted by many top news organizations and by the statements of numerous Congressmen. The purported refutation in Breitbart is not. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
No one here is debating whether Breitbart is a reliable source. This has been discussed by the community at the appropriate place, and it is not. Wikipedia does not publish original research, or material found only in inappropriate sources. Similarly, your personal impressions of the intentions of the founders of the Magyar Garda are interesting but not relevant to writing a Wikipedia article. Nor are your personal observations about the videos pertinent; we cover what reliable sources have reported. RedState, a partisan web sit, is also not a reliable source. If your research shows that The Forward was mistaken, I am confident that the editor of The Forward would be interested in hearing from you. So would editors at the Washington Post, NY Times, and many other reliable sources. After you have published there, Wikipedia will be able to use the results of your conjecture; not before.
MarkBernstein (
talk)
17:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor has proposed Wikipedia omit all information supplied on background to newspapers and other media ("anonymous sources") in order to suppress a widely reported, paraphrased quotation that might embarrass the subject. This would be, in my view, a drastic policy change for Wikipedia -- one which the extreme right wing in American politics has been calling for in recent months, but also one which would further discredit the project’s already disastrous reputation. I doubt that this is the ideal place to enact such a drastic policy change. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia have omitted any coverage of the Washington Post’s reporting on Watergate, since it was based on an anonymous source? Shall we also delete every White House statement issued on background? As I said, this would be a very radical change to Wikipedia, requiring immediate changes to thousands of biographies -- many of which are under discretionary sanctions. And all those changes could be made under BLPEXCEPT. Let a thousand edit wars bloom?
MarkBernstein (
talk)
23:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Would like to include a transcript of his July 11, 2017 interview with CNN's New Day (TV series) with Alisyn Camerota in which he addresses Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russian lawyer and President Trump's meeting at G20 with Putin.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 12:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Should subject be included in this list? Thoughts? X4n6 ( talk) 21:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sebastian Gorka has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add external citation to : http://www.newsweek.com/gorka-islamic-extremism-terrorism-right-wing-extremists-648754 (verify with these Other reliable sources)
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-remains-silent-following-minnesota-mosque-bombing
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/trump-official-gorka-derided-mosque-attack-claim-170809071507801.html
Sebastian Gorka said there was a series of “fake hate crimes” in recent months, and suggested the White House won't say anything about a bomb attack on a mosque until they know who did it.
“We’ve had a series of crimes committed, alleged hate crimes, by right-wing individuals in the last six months that turned out to actually have been propagated by the left,” he said. “So let’s wait and see and allow local authorities to provide their assessment. And then the White House will make its comments.” CharlesPrice1964 ( talk) 23:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The deletion of the article is being contested. This was the body of the article at time of deletion with full citations. Sources can be found on my talk page. As a result of the article deletion, I entered the content under Sebastian's Personal section and it was deleted promptly with the deleting editor stating that this was a page about him and not his wife. See revision history. Body of BLP of Katharina Gorka deleted article;
copy-paste of twice-deleted article collapsed
|
---|
Katharine Fairfax (Cornell) Gorka is the wife of Sebastian Gorka and a former member of President Donald Trump's transition team.[1] Her parents, M Keen Cornell and Mortimer Ryon lived in Pennsylvania.[2] After graduating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,[2] she earned a Master's Degree from the London School of Economics in the early 1990s before meeting Sebastian in Romania in 1994.[3] They married in Hungary's St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church in Sopron in 1996. At the time, she was the regional director of the National Forum Foundation.[2] In 2003, she and her husband founded the Institute for Transitional Democracy and International Security in Budapest, Hungary.[4][5] In 2009, she was the executive director of The Westminster Institute, a think tank that focused on threats from extremism and radical ideologies.[6] In March 2016, she became the foreign policy advisor to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz.[5] On November 29, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump chose Gorka to be part of his "landing team" tasked with meeting President Barack Obama's officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),[7] an agency she had publically criticized in the past through articles on Breitbart News and other outlets.[8] During this period, she told DHS officials in charge of the Countering Violent Extremism Task Force (CVE) that it would likely be renamed "Countering Radical Islam" or "Countering Violent Jihad".[9] She became a policy advisor at DHS on April 7, 2017.[3][10] Because of Gorka's openness about her anti-Islam views, her role in the administration has been controversial.[1] Along with President Donald Trump aides, she worked to eliminate a CEV grant to Life After Hate, a group that opposes white supremacy. When the list of new CEV grant recipients was released June 23, 2017, Life After Hate was not included. This decision drew significant attention when a 20 year-old white supremacist attacked a group protesting the Unite the Right rally less than two months later, killing one.[1] She is the author of Cornell Iron Works: The History of an Enduring Family Business and co-edited Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamismwith Patrick Sookhdeo.[11][12] |
I find it unfathomable that these factual details, or at least some, would not be a part of an encyclopedic wikipedia and arouses my suspicion of forces at play.
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 12:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please elevate or act accordingly. No problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipietime ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
For additional reference, this is a recap of deleted article;
https://wiki2.org/en/Katharine_Gorka
that features an interesting interview with Ms. Gorka.
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 19:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Also two of her works should be attributed to her;
She is the author of Cornell Iron Works: The History of an Enduring Family Business and co-edited Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism with Patrick Sookhdeo.
Would someone make the addition? I am staying out of the article.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC) She is the author of Cornell Iron Works: The History of an Enduring Family Business and co-edited Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism with Patrick Sookhdeo.
This garbage is now considered a reliable source? Is that what Wikipedia has sunk to? Thismightbezach ( talk) 03:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/katharine-gorka-life-after-hate_us_59921356e4b09096429943b6
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-national-security-gorka-234950
Note to deleting editors; your more than welcome to engage on discussion on my talk page. Bullying has no place in civil society. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 16:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Research complete, article for wikipedia forthcoming. The creation of this article will be clocked for record speedy deletion tagging. On your marks!-- Wikipietime ( talk) 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Needs external Link reference since it was jointly established.
http://www.westminster-institute.org/videos/
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 20:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
a lot of interesting a relevant facts are obtainable at;
https://web.archive.org/web/20150403013900/http://thegorkabriefing.com
at least a link or mention to the site seems appropriate.
“All those who have brought death to our shores as al Qaeda operatives have done so not out of purely political conviction but clearly as a result of the fact that they feel transcendentally justified, that they see their violent deeds as sanctioned by God. If we wish to combat the ideology that drives these murderers, we ignore the role of religion at our peril.” —Dr. Sebastian Gorka’s Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There's already enough out there to go on, but after his views as reported here... https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-adviser-says-people-should-stop-criticizing-white-supremacists-so-much-ddd587767d60/amp/ ...and that article was published just 2 days before the events in Charlottesville, we'd be failing if we didn't have a lot about his views on white supremacists. Boscaswell talk 09:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Gorka said he supported an armed militia in response to the police beating protestors during the 2006 protests in Hungary. I'm now being attacked for posting his remarks in full context. Wikipedia bias. Thismightbezach ( talk) 19:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)