Talk:Erik Prince

Grammar

There are many grammatical errors in this article. It seems to be below the normal standards not only for Wikipedia, but for English in general. Bad English seems to be a trend more and more prevalent. Is it a generational thing?

Cspan Aug 11 2017 Washington Journal

Good content for article! Wikipietime (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Reuters and NYTimes = WP:PUBLICFIGURE

This revert, coupled with this edit summary ("rm unnecessary in-text attribution, excessive wordiness, and factual info coming from a wildly unreliable source"), really puzzles me. DrFleischman, I would expect that type of revert and summary from some driveby, extreme right-wing, IP vandal, not an experienced editor. What gives?

We're dealing with an application of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so the allegations must be attributed very carefully, and we're dealing with two very RS.

I was literally fixing an NPOV "neutering of a RS" violation. That's not allowed. Editors must neutrally present what RS say, warts and all, with their biases intact. When I checked the source, I found it was even worse than I imagined. The content was much stronger, and the relatively mild description was removed using a bogus edit summary. I then went to work to present what was actually in the source, with attribution and denial, as required.

Was there some type of confusion or misunderstanding here? Keep in mind that I am not saying my wording couldn't be improved, but complete deletion is uncalled for. Try applying WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Was any of that edit about Prince? It didn't seem to be. Frankly, it reads like someone throwing stuff on a wall hoping some will stick. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's part of the subject of that whole section. It describes his connection with meetings involving Trump campaign people, and efforts to help Trump win. It's pretty simple, and more is being documented all the time. The investigation is now delving much deeper into the meeting(s) in the Seychelles, and Prince was a key person. It's very much on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your addition was: "Reuters" reported that a "company connected to Zamel also worked on a proposal for a 'covert multimillion-dollar online manipulation campaign' to help Trump, utilizing thousands of fake social media accounts, the New York Times report said." Reuters also reported that Trump Jr.'s attorney said that "nothing came of the meeting". If this is going to be added, it should probably replace the paragraph with something like:In August 2016, Donald Trump Jr. had a meeting with Prince, George Nader (an envoy for princes who led Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) and Joel Zamel, a social media specialist. Zamel extolled his company’s ability to give an edge to a political campaign; his firm having already drawn up a multimillion-dollar proposal for a social media manipulation effort to help elect Mr. Trump.

Tarl N. (discuss) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That's blatant whitewashing and manipulation of the source, IOW an NPOV violation. Since it's a strong allegation, exact quoting is necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Resorting to direct quoting is what you do when the source itself is meaningful (either because it's dubious or because the source itself is involved in the action being described). In this case, the NYT article is itself reporting what anonymous other people who know what happened at the meeting said, so unless your contention that it's important that the NYT reported it, that simply is part of the reference. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, I think you misunderstood the purpose of my revert, which is understandable because there were multiple things wrong with that content and it was difficult to express them all in my edit summary.

1. We shouldn't be including what Trump Jr.'s lawyer said about the meeting, even with attribution, because the lawyer is most definitely NOT a reliable source. If the lawyer's statement became news itself, then it could be added, but at least as it was written it came off as the lawyer getting their totally unreliable say about what happened in the meeting into our article. I won't stand for that.
2. The article is about Prince, not about Zamel, and the inclusion of additional info about Zamel's background was off-topic and non-neutral. It's enough to say he was an Israeli specialist in social media manipulation. If there's a better way to descibe Zamel in an appositive phrase then I'm all ears, but I wouldn't support a full sentence about something he did that has no apparent connection to Prince.
3. If a fact is supported by a reliable source and uncontradicted then in-text attribution is unnecessary and in fact can be seen as treating a fact as an opinion and casting unnecessary doubt on the source. It should be avoided. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Avoid unnecessary quotations. Material that can be readily paraphrased should be paraphrased.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the basis of calling Zamel "specialist in social media manipulation"? Reuters says "a co-founder of an Israeli consulting firm". NYT says "social media specialist" and "specialist in social media manipulation". So we three options to pick from, based on two sources. If we pick "specialist in social media manipulation", then we should treat "manipulation" as an allegation and take Zamel's denial (that actually comes from Zamel's mouthpiece) into account. Why use a contentious label at all? Why make things more difficult than they are? Politrukki (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times. The word "manipulation" is not really pejorative in this context, and it's certainly not something that needs to be alleged since it's not illegal.- MrX 🖋 17:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Which The New York Times? The one that says "specialist in social media manipulation" or the one that says "social media specialist"? Actually, the first paragraph says "an Israeli specialist in social media manipulation" without mentioning Zamel by name. If we don't mention Zamel by name in the article, then no denial is needed. And how is your comment "since it's not illegal" relevant? Politrukki (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Also [1][2][3][4][5].- MrX 🖋 21:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Fleischman here, attribution to Reuters is not really necessary and the version he reverted to is more concise. I'm not sure about the exact wording but I don't think "manipulation" is pejorative here, I've seen it used in academic books so it seems fine for us to use it as well.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The context indicates he was chosen, not just because he was a generic, dime-a-dozen, "specialist in social media", but because he's a expert at manipulating it. That's what they wanted and needed. That word is the defining reason this is even relevant, so it's perfectly proper to follow the source(s) which use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I call your bluff and raise: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] The sources say "social media specialist", "social media expert", "entrepreneur", or "co-founder" (your source). Politrukki (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Link to Academi from blackwater

I think blackwater should be linked to Academi because a lot of people know the name blackwater better and might be interested in opening the link. An exception should be made and put two links to the same site in the same paragraph Nuk3n (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINK. Adding links detracts from readability, so if they aren't necessary, don't add them. In the case of two mentions in the same paragraph, the first will have already been read before the second is found, so a 2nd link is not necessary. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)