Talk:Erik Prince/Archive 2

RfC: Ties to Trump transition

 * 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 content be added to the article (or something similar)?
 * In 2016 Prince supported Republican candidate Donald Trump for President of the United States. Prince had no formal role in Trump's transition. In December 2016 Prince visited the transition team offices in New York. In April 2017 as part of a broader investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating a January 11, 2017 meeting in the Seychelles at which Prince presented himself as an unofficial representative of Trump.

For reference, here's an incomplete list of additional sources covering the same story: CBS News, NBC News, The Hill, Esquire, NY Daily News, Fox News, the AP, Boston Globe. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Include this or something similar. Extremely well-sourced, significant to his biography, appropriately worded, and placement and length are proportionate and proper. My only minor suggestions are: the text should mention whom he met in the Seychelles; the text above does not say, but the sources do. Neutralitytalk 04:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add that I support Snow's suggested rewording. Neutralitytalk 03:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * BLP Violation There is no firm connection presented about this meeting to Trump or Russia. It's a UAE meeting where UAE is interested in modifying Iran foreign policy.  Mentioning FBI investigation violates BLPCRIME.  The Trump/Russian connection is pure speculation that isn't supported by sources.  The story is titillating news because of Prince's former connection to Blackwater and his sister, DeVos.  It's tabloid journalism about a 3 month old meeting that has had no follow-on or significance and a careful reading ofthe source article verifies just how thin it is.  Only Prince is named in this supposed high-profile back channel meeting. It is denied as nonsense by both Russia and Trump. --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, the first paragraph of the Washington Post story states in crystal clear terms that the meeting took place, that it was "part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials," and that "U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump." So your assertion that this is "pure speculation" or "not supported by sources" does not appear to be accurate. What's more, BLPCRIME only applies to "relatively unknown" persons, which is obviously not Prince. Also, the fact that "only Prince is named" has nothing to do with anything, the sources don't support your assertion that this was solely "UAE meeting where UAE is interested in modifying Iran foreign policy," and neither the Washington Post nor NBC news nor the Boston Globe are generally considered to be "tabloid journalism." Fyddlestix (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh no, the first paragraph says "The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between ... Prince and a Russian...." They don't name the Russian. They don't say who thinks it was "apparent".  They don't list anything discussed except hopes by UAE.  In fact, it's a 3 month old meeting with no followup.  And we have have no information regarding the FBI's involvement or why a post-election meeting is relevant to an election probe. The piece portray Prince in a negative light without adequate sourcing for an encyclopedic BLP. Nothing in that story ties Prince to Trump or Putin or the election.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the quality of the sourcing here almost literally could not be higher (in terms of how we evaluate such things on Wikipedia: we evaluate sources for their general reliability and their numbers; what we do not do is micro-analyze their journalistic technique on a given story, since A) that's blatant WP:Original research and B) it would introduce the bias of our own interpretation in the process, which is the exact reason we have a verification process based on summarizing what reliable sources have to say on a matter, rather than our own perspectives) it seems to me that you are in essence saying that no source will ever be respected enough for you to support inclusion of this statement. Am I incorrect? If so, please give us an example of a source which you think would suffice, since the Washington Post (widely regarded on this site as a great example of a reliable source), does not seem to suffice for you.


 * And incidentally, your assertion that every other source that has picked up the story (including most of the largest and most resource-rich news corporations in the world) are only recycling the original story and have made no efforts to investigate or corroborate any element of it, is pure speculation on your part, and almost absolutely certain to be wrong. This is a major story, which is a component of the single biggest news story in the U.S. at present.  I can fairly well guarantee you that between NBC, CBS, FOX News, the Associated Press, CNN, the New York Daily Post, The Boston Globe, and dozens of other reliable sources, these details have been dug into.  But in any event, neither you nor I are meant to be interpreting their conclusions; as editors on this project, we simply faithfully record a summary of what the sources are saying, and we don't filter those perspectives to just those that we think are wise or likely to be proven as correct by history.


 * BLP is an important policy, but it is meant to supplement WP:V and WP:NPOV, which are pillar policies; it's not meant to be an excuse to violate them. It requires us to employ a somewhat higher level of caution in our process, but not to completely bury our heads in the sand and expunge any reference whatsoever to a story that is currently splashed across every newspaper and television screen in the United States.  A few weeks back, I may have better understood where you are coming from, but with the current level of coverage, I have to say I am deeply perplexed that you don't see this as encyclopedically relevant information.  S n o w  let's rap 09:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not speculation when you start listing sources like CBS news that state it's a Washington Post story in the first paragraph. WaPo didn't draw any factual conclusions except that a meeting took place.  Everything else attributed opinion.  No, we don't violate BLP policy to infer a criminal investigation is ongoing and no, we don't chronicle short news cycle items in BLPs until they have grounded historical context for weight.  That's the difference between news and an encyclopedia.  There is no rush because encyclopedic entries aren't affected by time.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * BLPCRIME is only violated if we directly state or imply that Prince committed a crime, whereas the content in question merely reports that the FBI is investigating the meeting. That is not a statement or implication guilt, as an investigation  may in fact exonerate him, as our readers are intelligent enough to know, and nothing in BLPCRIME (or any policy) directs us to hide such information from them, if it is well sourced.  And this couldn't be any better sourced.  I think you should re-read all two lines of BLPCRIME, because saying that it requires us to ignore details about a clear FBI statement about an investigation (reported in numerous impeccable sources), is (forgive the blunt wording) nonsense.  We do have to be careful to frame and word the reference to the invesitation to avoid an WP:UNDUE implication of guilt (obviously--and we'd do that per WP:NPOV in any event), but that's the extent of how far BLPCRIME applies here.   S n o w  let's rap 20:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on how this discussion has gone, I think we are grasping at any policy or guideline we can think of. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ,, and , would you be okay with moving (or at least continuing) this discussion into the "Extended discussion" subsection below? My apologies for not setting it up ahead of time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to leave the above where it is, but yeah, by all means, we can continue further discussion below.  S n o w  let's rap 20:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Include - although I am willing to be flexible/compromise on the exact wording. This story has very broad and high profile coverage in multiple RS, it would be NPOV violation not to mention it. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * SNOW Include. The coverage really could not be more broad, nor the quality of the references more representative of what we consider reliable sourcing on this project.  Discussion, especially as of the last few days, has now permeated every corner of major broadcast and print media in the U.S. and this story (whether time eventually validates or disproves certain elements within it) has now become a major part of the political drama currently gripping the world's largest government and news media.  I usually try to avoid terms that can be interpreted as purely hyperbolic, but under these circumstances, it would be nothing short of patently absurd to not mention this story anywhere on Wikipedia.  However, as each of the support !votes has already mentioned, the exact wording may need some tailoring--attribution needs to be better, for starters.  S n o w  let's rap 09:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Include but reword. It's clumsy. The way it's written (a, b, c, d) reads like you're trying to make a connection from "supported campaign" to "trump representative". The last sentence by itself is precise and should be included, it's the clumsy tying into "he supported trump" that edges into trying to make the connection without stating it. Perhaps if that were rephrased intoWhile Prince supported [...], he had no formal role [...]. In April [...] presented himself [...], it would not appear to be trying to draw a conclusion. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 22:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe this could be fixed with a paragraph break? After all there's a conceptual difference between supporting/donating to the campaign and collaborating (or purporting to collaborate) during the transition. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think more is called for than some formatting. I see what Tarl is talking about here with regard to...well, not so much connecting the dots as implying their connections through mere proximity.  For me, having taking another look at the exact wording, the solution here is much more simple than it may appear: we simply remove some of the extraneous statements.  This is what I propose is the essential information, supported by the sources and without POV, speculation, or undue implication:


 * "In December 2016 Prince visited the transition team of then U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump at their offices in New York. On January 11, 2017, Prince took part in a meeting with a purported confidant of Russian President Vladmir Putin in the Seychelles. The meeting, at which Prince is said to have presented himself as an unofficial representative of Trump [attribute to best sources here], was arranged by United Arab Emirates officials and concerned Russia's foreign policy interests in the Middle East, particularly its relationship to Iran.  On April [exact date] 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed that it was scrutinizing that meeting as part of a broader investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections."


 * That has better flow, in my opinion, and reduces the potential for our readers to receive implications not evidenced in the sources. It doesn't really matter whether or not Prince supported Trump previously or not.  The implications of the act are the same, and the truth about what actually happened (which we may or may not eventually know) are not changed by knowing that he was a pre-election-victory supporter.  The only thing that including his previous support for Trump does is create this (very subtle, but still noticeable) implication that he is more likely to have actually been acting as a Trump envoy.  That's not really appropriate for us to be suggesting, even tangentially.  If the story continues to evolve, it may be appropriate to at some point note that others have drawn that conclusion themselves, but I don't think we are there yet; and even if/when that situation does arise, we will carefully attribute it to the parties making those claims, not represent it in our own un-attributed prose.  S n o w  let's rap 05:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works for me. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 12:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a few gripes on the finer details, but I agree on the approach. I propose we firm up our consensus on the include-or-not debate, add Snow Rise's proposed solution, and then we can edit around the edges and come back to talk if needed. Yay for consensus building! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still not passing the WP:NEWS test. It needs to attribute views that were attributed to UAE and the FBI statement needs to be dropped.  The problem is one of weight and BLP.  If this meeting had nothing to do with Trump or Putin, we will never another thing.  Then we have an orphaned and inference laden paragraph.  It is precisely why we wait for more substantive coverage when introducing negative information into BLPs.  This lasted a news cycle and currently doesn't warrant the space being given to it. If it gets legs and more revelations of facts, then it may be worth mentioning.  Right now, it's a one day news blurb.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, Snow's version works for me. Neutralitytalk 00:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Include but reword Per TarlN and above conversations. L3X1 (distant write)  14:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Include (as nom). This story is highly noteworthy and reliably sourced. DHeyward's analysis is original research because it uses certain facts in the WaPo source to question the source's own explicit conclusions. The source draws certain conclusions, based on its own sources and evidence, and those conclusions have been echoed far and wide by numerous other reliable sources. (The finer details of the wording can be hashed out once this RfC is resolved.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Snow's version but drop the first sentence. Still feel a little bit to much like trying to connect dots. Timothy Joseph Wood  11:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Include but reword I agree it the wording is clumsy. There is quite a bit of speculation in the article. I think an intext attribution to the source would be appropriate and the fact that a statement was issued denying involvement in the transition Seraphim System (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Include but reword, oer TarlN et al..  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude – This story is pure innuendo by hearsay, and did not get more than a couple days of attention. Exclude as non-encyclopedic nothingburger + BLPVIO. — JFG talk 14:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Include - It looks like this is already a snow include, and of course it is not a BLP violation, but I wanted to also add that there should be some mention of his contributions to the Trump campaign.- MrX 14:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude Summoned by a bot. Per WP:NOTNEWS I don't believe this information belongs on the page. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 02:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Include and reword per Tarl N and Snow. Objectively present the facts as indicated in authoritative sources.--Rpclod (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Include but alter by being more balanced and avoiding insinuation/speculation. There are mainstream news sources covering the Erik Prince/Russia story: CBS News, NBC News, The Hill, Esquire, NY Daily News, Fox News, the AP, Boston Globe. So I don't see how the topic can be ignored. Yet, WP:V and WP:NPOV are fundamental written policies of Wikipedia which are not implemented frequently enough in practice. So agree with User:  Tarl N.  that “"he supported trump" should be left out in relation to Derek Prince.  Also, Snopes mentions, “A statement provided to the Post by a spokesman for Prince acknowledged that the meeting took place, but said the meeting had “nothing to do” with President Trump…” so that is a relevant point also and should be mentioned since we don't know what was discussed in the meeting.desmay (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Reword to scrupulously follow sources. LK (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer – Please also read the extensive discussion at BLP/N, which resulted in consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok. — JFG talk 15:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Objection. This is disruptive, regardless of JFG's intent or whether I agree with the consensus at BLPN or not. This RfC was started on April 6. That BLPN discussion was started on April 16 on the exact same issue. The participants in this RfC were not aware of the BLPN discussion (at least I wasn't) and haven't had a chance to respond; I suspect many of the participants in that discussion weren't aware of this one. This appears to be blatant forum shopping, and it's totally inappropriate to incorporate so-called consensus from another forum when closing this discussion. I suggest that any admin reviewing this thread remind JFG of appropriate methods for building consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree - the BLPN discussion was about a different article (Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections), not this one, and JFG's analysis of what the "consensus" was there is quite incorrect imo. That statement is not from a formal close, just something that 2 or 3 (out of many) participants agreed on after everyone else had got sick of the IDHT clearly evident in that thread and tuned out the bickering... Fyddlestix (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fyddlestix on both points: the BLPN discussion was on a different article, JFG's analysis of the "consensus" there does not reflect the actual discussion, and this RfC (which started earlier, had broader participation, etc.) controls. Neutralitytalk 03:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion
Has this story evolved beyond the one day news event? I've seen nothing else except the WaPo story with scant detail and no followup. --DHeyward (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats really not unusual. I wonder where WaPo got the story, do they say? - it should be mentioned that there was an article, but there isnt too much more to say about it. Seraphim System (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unusual for an encyclopedia to weight a single meeting with unknown participants, unclear objectives and unknown outcomes that was a days worth of coverage. I haven't seen a single source that doesn't rely on Washington Post's story.  A notable event would have details emerging that confirm or deny allegations.  This is WP:NOTNEWS in a nutshell.  WP is not a diary of events. --DHeyward (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the Encyclopedia article you are discussing? Due to the nature of the content on this page, some of the sources included are primary sources. I don't think it should be unduly weighted, which is why I support the outcome of the above RfC to include in text attribution to the source. I think we need to also mention that there has been an official denial of Prince's involvement on the transition team, and how that is relevant to the meeting - as the allegation is that Prince acted as a conduit between Trump and Putin. Seraphim System (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing the Seychelle's meeting being discussed above. I'm not sure what "primary sources" you are referring.  We have one source, The Washington Post, that ran with no followup.  WaPo is the basis for all other reports.  No additional information is available.  Other than Prince, we don't know who else attended, what was discussed or what the outcome.  It's the epitome of news that is not encyclopedic.  Because of the lack those details, it's impossible to satisfy WP:UNDUE.  Gratuitous mention of the FBI is a BLPCRIME issue.  This news story has already died.--DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is news that is encyclopedic and news that is not encyclopedic. Whether news is an appropriate source depends on the subject of this article. For law or history articles specialized sources are preferable, but I don't see a problem here. This is no different then the other news stories about Prince that have intermittently appeared in the press over the years. None of those had followup either, but they are (properly) still included. Seraphim System (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also regardless of what I think, the RfC result is overwhelming, and I think the rewording is fair because it includes in-text attribution to the source. Seraphim System (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be unaware of how threaded discussions work. Please familiarize yourself with it as random outdenting disrupts the flow.  You also seem to be unaware of fundamental policy.  What events in Prince's article only received passing coverage? Events must have an enduring quality to be encyclopedic. Facts like birthdate, education, etc are different from events like a birthday party or graduation commencement. We don't do diary accounts of peoples lives.  That means it's appropriate to say he was a firefighter as a fact but a one-day story about a house fire that made the papers is not notable.  WP:NOTNEWS is policy.  Here is a helpful bit when assessing whether an event is worthy of inclusion: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.  With the current level of detail, we cannot assess WP:DUE because we have no follow-up coverage of the event.  Lack of coverage speaks to the notability of the event.  In addition, mentioning an FBI investigation of an event where only Prince is identified is a blatant WP:BLPCRIMEissue.  Wikipedia does not cover living people in that manner especially when it's only a single day story in the news.  The question is: "If this meeting is never mentioned or covered again, is it still notable?" We know virtually nothing about the meeting and the notability question needs an answer.  It seems the argument is that it's notable now and that it will be apparent in some near future event.  Wikipedia waits for that event and adds it when notability is enduring.   --DHeyward (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It not a WP:DUE issue. It is one line with in-text attribution. It treats the weight of the material appropriate, in relation to the other sources available -

this is why the policy is called due weight - WP:DUE being used as an excuse to exclude sources editors don't like it is really an abuse of the policy. Seraphim System (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems I do need to familiarize myself with WP:INDENT Seraphim System (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.

RfC: Mosque in Afganistan + Stoning of Soraya
Should following be included in the article (sourced from the Daily Caller): He has also built mosques for Afghan soldiers and he funded the film The Stoning of Soraya. Seraphim System (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose as presented. Seraphim System started this RfC without even attempting to resolve the matter through regular talk page discussion, but regardless... The problems here are twofold. First, TDC is not a reliable source, as discussed in various fora including the RSN archives. Second, SS is seeking to insert this material in the "Charitable donations' section, even though the cited source does not support that these were either charitable or donations. In fact, Prince built the mosques at his own bases--presumably for his own employees--and "financed" The Stoning of Soraya M.--suggesting that this was an investment rather than a donation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnecessary. And BTW, without even attempting to resolve the matter through regular talk page discussion its always going to result in a RfC. L3X1 (distant write)  13:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as hyperbolic and exaggeratory analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis, which is clearly against policy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the three votes above me. And I suggest we hold off on more RFCs here until some of the ones already underway are closed, especially on issues where we haven't even tried to resolve the dispute beforehand. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the two reasons identified by Dr. Fleischman (reliability of source and inappropriateness of labeling these activities as charitable in nature). On the procedural question, I don't have a problem with a speedy RfC where the question is neutrally presented, the question is narrow and precise ("include/exclude Y"), and extended discussion is unlikely to be productive.Neutralitytalk 23:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended Discussion
I've read through the above RfCs and based on User:DrFleischman comments above, I determined the probaility of User:DrFleischman altering his position on Prince's mosque building and other activities was approximately zero. Because the consensus clause will require established consensus for anyone other then User:DrFleischman to restore my edit, I decided an RfC was, in fact, in order. I accept there may be truth to his position on Soraya, but he has been pushing this mosque issue hard based on nothing more then his own declaration that one can not be charitable to one's own "employees" (quotes because I don't know why User:DrFleischman keeps calling Afghan soldiers Prince's employees as though they were being paid by him or his company. If there is some evidence of that I have never seen it.) Seraphim System (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not based on my own declaration - based on our verifiability policy, which requires that all disputed content be supported by reliable sources. Which reliable source says that Prince's construction of mosques at his military bases was an act of charity (or a donation)? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The dictionary. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Seraphim on this one. Building temples is generally regarded as a charitable act, since it almost always means surrendering ownership to someone else (usually the religious community involved). I can't think of incidents of paying for temple construction not being charitable in recent times (back in Roman days, yes. But not recently). If we can document Prince paid for construction of buildings he surrendered control over, that's generally considered charity. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 01:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The U.S. Marines built a mosque at Camp Lejeune. Not charity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)