![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good summary of other sources: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121246/-Quick-Profile-Special-Operations-OPSEC-Education-Fund
In-depth: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/special-operations-opsec-education-fund/
Response, neutral: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-usa-campaign-binladen-ad-idUSBRE87E01F20120815
Neutral, also mentions swift boat: http://news.yahoo.com/special-ops-group-attacks-obama-
That's a start. Let's work to integrate these sources. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 18:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the passage:
Given that OPSEC has been described as swiftboating Obama, the fact that one of their spokespeople is on record as having extreme positions against Obama seems somewhat relevant to me. That's probably why http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/21/in_facebook_postings_opsec_spokesman_rips_communist_in_chief_hussein_mao_bama notes this (which, incidentally, allows us to avoid any charges of undue synthesis).
Now that I've spelled it out, is the relevance still unclear to you, Arthur? StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Try offering explanations, not naked conclusions, because when your conclusions are inexplicable, we wind up politely disregarding them. Start by explaining how the fact that their spokesman is a Birther is "irrelevant". I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, first time really saying this, but I think this page needs to be totally rewritten from scratch. Several sections and sentences are direct copies from the articles from which they are taken. They are cited properly yes, but I think we should reword them to make them our own, instead of just copy and pasting them. Wishinguponyou ( talk) 22:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There are multiple number of sources for this.
This is not disputed unless you can prove to me that they did not define themselves this way. ViriiK ( talk) 05:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good list if you want.
Are we done fighting over what's valid for you as a "reliable source"? Any more removal of sourced information is vandalism. ViriiK ( talk) 05:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, a cite. That's great. No need to accuse each other of vandalism, wow. I'm going to add to it that it's a tax status, which it is, but otherwise that's fine with me. Do you think it belongs in the first sentence -- is an organization's tax status that important? Do other organizations have their tax status listed? I suppose 'non-profit' would be descriptive (if that's accurate).
guanxi (
talk)
05:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that we have reliable sources questioning "social welfare organization" so we can't just state it uncontroversially. Even our sources that don't question it still keep it in quotes and explain it solely as a tax status, not an accurate description. This is a huge NPOV problem! I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
And yet our reliable sources put "social welfare organization" in scare quotes and discuss how poorly the term applies. Why should we ignore our sources? I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've protected the article for three days due to edit warring. Let's discuss additions on the talk page instead of a continuous add/revert cycle. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
1. the first sentence of the lead should tell us what the organization is and what it does, e.g. "OPSEC is a U.S. 501c4 organization formed to educate American citizens about the dangers of compromising operations security in special operations by disclosing sensitive information about the operations. OPSEC was formed in 2012 by former special operatives and intelligence community members in reaction to disclosures made by the Obama administration following the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011. ...."
2. change "Operational Security" to "Operations Security" which is more accurate (my mistake—I took "Operational Security" directly from the OPSEC website).
3. move Leadership section down, move Activities section up.
4. add bi-partisan nature of outrage over Obama leaks to Activities section, e.g. Diane Feinstein, Bob Kerry, 2 DOJ investigators appointed, etc.
5. add ref from OPSEC website to sentence about "contributions are not tax-deductible". -- Kenatipo speak! 16:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I changed that webpage after reading the New York Times story attached to it. I didn't think the change needed explaining as it was obvious improvement and more like what the news said. Old webpage said only criticized Obama, with no meaning. New page explains what they accused Obama of, from the first page of the news story. Also old page made it sound like the Obama Campaign made all of those comments about the opsec, when it was the Times news story who made most of them. Sally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Season ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It was changed back [10] but I think it was better in Sally's version. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 00:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Still no explanations here, but some people have removed my edits or stuck Who? or Citation? inserts into the article. To clarify
1- The Obama campaign isn't the only source for the "swift boat" comparisons. VetPAC is another. News sources such as Christian Science Monitor say this: 'Swift-Boating' Obama? Pentagon denounces politics of attack ad. The US military is pushing back against the campaign of a group of former Special Operations Forces officers who have spoken out against President Obama in what some have described as a latter-day “Swift Boat” campaign. see http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0823/Swift-Boating-Obama-Pentagon-denounces-politics-of-attack-ad
2- Many news sources have picked apart the Republican membership and leadership of the group, at least the members that have stepped forward or can be identified to date. The Associated Press and Navy Times say this: Its identified members have Republican ties. see http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/08/ap-special-operators-tell-anti-obama-groups-zip-it-082112/ It's leader is Taylor, a Republican. Every single person mentioned on its public record documents is Republican. Sally Season ( talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I read that link, Belchfire. It told me that you don't know how to read. It mentioned you by name in fact. The sources tell us what the public records say, not me. The sources did the research, not me. You should keep trying to understand, you will get it eventually. I hope this helps. Sally Season ( talk) 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/18/us-usa-campaign-leaks-idUSBRE87G0Z320120818
How is explaining something as Republican an attack? That sounds partisan. Sally Season ( talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC) When I went to the ATTRIBUTE page, it says that policy is under dispute? Sally Season ( talk) 22:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The largest paragraph, of this article is about criticism of the subject. It has the longest paragraph, and the largest amount of references. Now there references I have no issue with, however the article seems to have an Undue amount of criticism of the subject, and certain things can be summarized to resolve this issue.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Suggestions? Sally Season ( talk) 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good summary of other sources: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121246/-Quick-Profile-Special-Operations-OPSEC-Education-Fund
In-depth: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/special-operations-opsec-education-fund/
Response, neutral: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-usa-campaign-binladen-ad-idUSBRE87E01F20120815
Neutral, also mentions swift boat: http://news.yahoo.com/special-ops-group-attacks-obama-
That's a start. Let's work to integrate these sources. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 18:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the passage:
Given that OPSEC has been described as swiftboating Obama, the fact that one of their spokespeople is on record as having extreme positions against Obama seems somewhat relevant to me. That's probably why http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/21/in_facebook_postings_opsec_spokesman_rips_communist_in_chief_hussein_mao_bama notes this (which, incidentally, allows us to avoid any charges of undue synthesis).
Now that I've spelled it out, is the relevance still unclear to you, Arthur? StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Try offering explanations, not naked conclusions, because when your conclusions are inexplicable, we wind up politely disregarding them. Start by explaining how the fact that their spokesman is a Birther is "irrelevant". I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, first time really saying this, but I think this page needs to be totally rewritten from scratch. Several sections and sentences are direct copies from the articles from which they are taken. They are cited properly yes, but I think we should reword them to make them our own, instead of just copy and pasting them. Wishinguponyou ( talk) 22:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There are multiple number of sources for this.
This is not disputed unless you can prove to me that they did not define themselves this way. ViriiK ( talk) 05:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good list if you want.
Are we done fighting over what's valid for you as a "reliable source"? Any more removal of sourced information is vandalism. ViriiK ( talk) 05:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, a cite. That's great. No need to accuse each other of vandalism, wow. I'm going to add to it that it's a tax status, which it is, but otherwise that's fine with me. Do you think it belongs in the first sentence -- is an organization's tax status that important? Do other organizations have their tax status listed? I suppose 'non-profit' would be descriptive (if that's accurate).
guanxi (
talk)
05:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that we have reliable sources questioning "social welfare organization" so we can't just state it uncontroversially. Even our sources that don't question it still keep it in quotes and explain it solely as a tax status, not an accurate description. This is a huge NPOV problem! I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
And yet our reliable sources put "social welfare organization" in scare quotes and discuss how poorly the term applies. Why should we ignore our sources? I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've protected the article for three days due to edit warring. Let's discuss additions on the talk page instead of a continuous add/revert cycle. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
1. the first sentence of the lead should tell us what the organization is and what it does, e.g. "OPSEC is a U.S. 501c4 organization formed to educate American citizens about the dangers of compromising operations security in special operations by disclosing sensitive information about the operations. OPSEC was formed in 2012 by former special operatives and intelligence community members in reaction to disclosures made by the Obama administration following the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011. ...."
2. change "Operational Security" to "Operations Security" which is more accurate (my mistake—I took "Operational Security" directly from the OPSEC website).
3. move Leadership section down, move Activities section up.
4. add bi-partisan nature of outrage over Obama leaks to Activities section, e.g. Diane Feinstein, Bob Kerry, 2 DOJ investigators appointed, etc.
5. add ref from OPSEC website to sentence about "contributions are not tax-deductible". -- Kenatipo speak! 16:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I changed that webpage after reading the New York Times story attached to it. I didn't think the change needed explaining as it was obvious improvement and more like what the news said. Old webpage said only criticized Obama, with no meaning. New page explains what they accused Obama of, from the first page of the news story. Also old page made it sound like the Obama Campaign made all of those comments about the opsec, when it was the Times news story who made most of them. Sally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Season ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It was changed back [10] but I think it was better in Sally's version. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 00:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Still no explanations here, but some people have removed my edits or stuck Who? or Citation? inserts into the article. To clarify
1- The Obama campaign isn't the only source for the "swift boat" comparisons. VetPAC is another. News sources such as Christian Science Monitor say this: 'Swift-Boating' Obama? Pentagon denounces politics of attack ad. The US military is pushing back against the campaign of a group of former Special Operations Forces officers who have spoken out against President Obama in what some have described as a latter-day “Swift Boat” campaign. see http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0823/Swift-Boating-Obama-Pentagon-denounces-politics-of-attack-ad
2- Many news sources have picked apart the Republican membership and leadership of the group, at least the members that have stepped forward or can be identified to date. The Associated Press and Navy Times say this: Its identified members have Republican ties. see http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/08/ap-special-operators-tell-anti-obama-groups-zip-it-082112/ It's leader is Taylor, a Republican. Every single person mentioned on its public record documents is Republican. Sally Season ( talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I read that link, Belchfire. It told me that you don't know how to read. It mentioned you by name in fact. The sources tell us what the public records say, not me. The sources did the research, not me. You should keep trying to understand, you will get it eventually. I hope this helps. Sally Season ( talk) 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/18/us-usa-campaign-leaks-idUSBRE87G0Z320120818
How is explaining something as Republican an attack? That sounds partisan. Sally Season ( talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC) When I went to the ATTRIBUTE page, it says that policy is under dispute? Sally Season ( talk) 22:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The largest paragraph, of this article is about criticism of the subject. It has the longest paragraph, and the largest amount of references. Now there references I have no issue with, however the article seems to have an Undue amount of criticism of the subject, and certain things can be summarized to resolve this issue.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Suggestions? Sally Season ( talk) 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)