Talk:CNN blackmail controversy

Somebody please just make this a redirect to CNN controversies. The merge discussion is a pretty clear cut SNOW "merge". And we've already wasted too much time on this nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

6 July 2017
I believe the article should be reverted to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CNN_blackmail_controversy&oldid=789252569 It's bigger, much more streamlinged and provides a solid understanding of the whole scandal, unlike the current version that looks more like a skeleton than like a proper article.

If you have concerns about this version - please, list them here in a readable form, and please, provide a reasoning for changes you propose. --DraKyry (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure.
 * Firstly, your previous version states, In the article published by CNN, the author Andrew Kaczynski explains the process that allowed the organization to discover the real identity of the user. After blackmailing him with that information, the user was forced to post an apology. This is a defamatory falsehood — no reliable source has said anyone was blackmailed by anyone. It is categorically unacceptable in Wikipedia. Your edit to After threatening the user with releasing that information" is no better, because no reliable source says any such threat was ever made. The unbylined RT article you cite (which is not acceptable as a source due to it being literally Russian government propaganda) doesn't even make that factual claim — it says CNN has been accused of that — so you misrepresented an unreliable source.
 * Secondly, that version includes a number of entirely-unreliable sources making claims about Kaczynski, including Twitter posts by random people and a story from Breitbart.com, which is categorically banned from being used as a source for living persons articles by dint of its long history of fabrications, misrepresentations and lies about people it politically opposes. They are unacceptable in this article. We must use reliable sources, particularly for negative claims about living people.
 * Thirdly, the statement that Kaczynski's actions were subsequently understood as an attempt on blackmailing the user is an unsourced defamatory statement in two ways — no reliable source has said his actions were blackmail, and the reliable sources which discuss the issue lay the responsibility on CNN as a whole, not on Kaczynski alone.
 * Fourthly, that version misrepresents reliable sources, specifically where it states, based on a NYMag article, Kaczynski could have avoided the Internet vigilantism if he hadn't written the line — the reliable source explicitly does not use Kaczynski's name and instead puts the responsibility on CNN as a whole. Using the source in this way is introducing a deliberate factual error which depicts a living person in a negative light. Similarly, that is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a POV-fork and should be speedy AfD'ed. Objective3000 (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Should probably include a link to the original
And also to an archived version in case CNN edits it. --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)