This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stefan Halper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 9 sections are present. |
Don't we normally include something about the individual's parents? The German name form "Stefan" would indicate German resp. German-Jewish descent. Rheinvolk ( talk) 16:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove paragraphs on Halper's involvement in the 2016 US Presidential election. This story is not backed up by verified and trustworthy sources. I would delete these segments until more information is available. Torkildl ( talk) 07:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph is an opinion and not supported by its references #s 3, 4, and 5</big:
"In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, Halper allegedly mishandled information pertinent to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign of 2016.[3][4][5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjcpaulsen ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Anybody know where he grew up and what high school(s) he attended? Abductive ( reasoning) 23:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence of an educational accomplishment in 1971 should be put in between the two other degrees dated 1967 and 2004. It should read as:
Stefan A. Halper [1] graduated from Stanford University in 1967. He also received a D.Phil. from the University of Oxford in 1971. [2] [3] He went on to gain his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in 2004. He was appointed director of American studies at the University of Cambridge's longstanding Department of Politics and International Studies.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
IWP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- 50.47.104.180 ( talk) 08:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
His Oxford award was made in 2001 not 1971. There is a Freedom of Information request pending to confirm this with the University. Cannot say more until results received. He did not complete his studies in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5CB0:CD00:A436:78CC:2F8E:3E3 ( talk) 10:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I can't say if the entirety of his work products were classified, presumably some were. However the contract descriptions are currently noted as "classified" but are public information, and are included in the FPDS entries already cited [1]. I would suggest listing the descriptions or removing the column so as to not feed into the current speculation regarding their nefarious purpose any more than necessary.
An alternate, more human-readable list of the descriptions can be seen here: https://govtribe.com/vendor/halper-stefan-great-falls-va
The descriptions are:
HQ003412C0039 - DIRECT LABOR [1]
HQ003414C0076 - RESEARCH AND STUDIES - THE YEAR 2030 [2]
HQ003415C0100 - RUSSIA-CHINA RELATIONSHIP STUDY [3]
HQ003416P0148 - INDIA AND CHINA ECON STUDY - Base Period (12 Months) [4]
HQ003416P0148 - DIRECT LABOR - Option Period (6 Months) [5]
Note: Halper published the 2013 ONA report, China: The Three Warfares, during that first contract period
[6]. I don't know if that would be worth tacking on as a footnote to the award description or using to flesh out the verbiage in this section?
JourneymanGoogleSearcher ( talk) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
References
Also worth noting that it should be "United States government research (2012–2018)," as that last option period just wrapped up in March. JourneymanGoogleSearcher ( talk) 23:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The FBI/CIA are deep in the mud with domestic politics - who would have guessed?
2601:181:8301:4510:1168:C377:D816:9F38 (
talk)
23:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
They are many references for this.
They list the actual documents regarding the arrest and court proceedings for case 1:94-po-00199.
One of them is Court Listener, A Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6345826/united-states-v-halper/
BneiBrakPhone ( talk) 09:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This shows the list of crimes:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6345826/parties/united-states-v-halper
BneiBrakPhone (
talk)
09:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know where that would be published? and should it not be in the Blp? Nocturnalnow ( talk) 01:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Spygate is mentioned 3 times and stated as an absolute fact to be "thoroughly debunked". Is that still the consensus of Editors to parrot that terminology and conclusion within this Blp?
Nocturnalnow (
talk)
02:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) (Blocked account)
Valjean You already expressed your thoughts about RCI on the reliable sources noticeboard but other editors disagreed with you. There is no consensus on RCI, it can absolutely be used. Nweil ( talk) 21:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stefan Halper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 9 sections are present. |
Don't we normally include something about the individual's parents? The German name form "Stefan" would indicate German resp. German-Jewish descent. Rheinvolk ( talk) 16:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove paragraphs on Halper's involvement in the 2016 US Presidential election. This story is not backed up by verified and trustworthy sources. I would delete these segments until more information is available. Torkildl ( talk) 07:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph is an opinion and not supported by its references #s 3, 4, and 5</big:
"In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, Halper allegedly mishandled information pertinent to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign of 2016.[3][4][5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjcpaulsen ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Anybody know where he grew up and what high school(s) he attended? Abductive ( reasoning) 23:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence of an educational accomplishment in 1971 should be put in between the two other degrees dated 1967 and 2004. It should read as:
Stefan A. Halper [1] graduated from Stanford University in 1967. He also received a D.Phil. from the University of Oxford in 1971. [2] [3] He went on to gain his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in 2004. He was appointed director of American studies at the University of Cambridge's longstanding Department of Politics and International Studies.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
IWP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- 50.47.104.180 ( talk) 08:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
His Oxford award was made in 2001 not 1971. There is a Freedom of Information request pending to confirm this with the University. Cannot say more until results received. He did not complete his studies in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5CB0:CD00:A436:78CC:2F8E:3E3 ( talk) 10:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I can't say if the entirety of his work products were classified, presumably some were. However the contract descriptions are currently noted as "classified" but are public information, and are included in the FPDS entries already cited [1]. I would suggest listing the descriptions or removing the column so as to not feed into the current speculation regarding their nefarious purpose any more than necessary.
An alternate, more human-readable list of the descriptions can be seen here: https://govtribe.com/vendor/halper-stefan-great-falls-va
The descriptions are:
HQ003412C0039 - DIRECT LABOR [1]
HQ003414C0076 - RESEARCH AND STUDIES - THE YEAR 2030 [2]
HQ003415C0100 - RUSSIA-CHINA RELATIONSHIP STUDY [3]
HQ003416P0148 - INDIA AND CHINA ECON STUDY - Base Period (12 Months) [4]
HQ003416P0148 - DIRECT LABOR - Option Period (6 Months) [5]
Note: Halper published the 2013 ONA report, China: The Three Warfares, during that first contract period
[6]. I don't know if that would be worth tacking on as a footnote to the award description or using to flesh out the verbiage in this section?
JourneymanGoogleSearcher ( talk) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
References
Also worth noting that it should be "United States government research (2012–2018)," as that last option period just wrapped up in March. JourneymanGoogleSearcher ( talk) 23:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The FBI/CIA are deep in the mud with domestic politics - who would have guessed?
2601:181:8301:4510:1168:C377:D816:9F38 (
talk)
23:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
They are many references for this.
They list the actual documents regarding the arrest and court proceedings for case 1:94-po-00199.
One of them is Court Listener, A Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6345826/united-states-v-halper/
BneiBrakPhone ( talk) 09:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This shows the list of crimes:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6345826/parties/united-states-v-halper
BneiBrakPhone (
talk)
09:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know where that would be published? and should it not be in the Blp? Nocturnalnow ( talk) 01:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Spygate is mentioned 3 times and stated as an absolute fact to be "thoroughly debunked". Is that still the consensus of Editors to parrot that terminology and conclusion within this Blp?
Nocturnalnow (
talk)
02:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) (Blocked account)
Valjean You already expressed your thoughts about RCI on the reliable sources noticeboard but other editors disagreed with you. There is no consensus on RCI, it can absolutely be used. Nweil ( talk) 21:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided.