Talk:Operation Mockingbird/Archive 2

Deborah Davis as a source
I'm extremely confused as to why Deborah Davis is being used as a source here when 1) her book was pulled by the publisher, and 2) her book was found to be riddled with errors (for example, she claimed Deep Throat was Richard Ober from the CIA when we now know it was Mark Felt of the FBI). Since the book by Davis doesn't meet our reliable source guideline, how is it that it is still being used here? Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because, apparently, she was the first to publicly call it "Operation Mockingbird". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting argument, one of primacy that is, but it appears flawed when you look closer. Wilford (2008) notes seven separate operations in his highly reliable and well received book on this subject. Not once does he mention "Mockingbird".  And he doesn't mention Project Mockingbird because that information only came to light in June 2007, likely after the book was already finished.  So let's backtrack a bit.  Wilford *does* mention the "Mighty Wurlitzer", as we know, and cites Thomas (1995:60).  According to Thomas, this was a "worldwide operation", and much of this has been written about elsewhere.  Again, nothing about any "Mockingbird".  Per the claims about the Wurlitzer, Thomas cites Powers (1979).  Previously, Stuart Loory used this term in his 1974 article for the Columbia Journalism Review, who five years before Davis, lays out the same argument on p. 12, but uses Wisner's description of the "mighty Wurlitzer" instead of Davis' "Operation Mockingbird".  Now let's look at what we have (note, this is only a small sample of the literature, for the purposes of this example): We have parity between Loory, Powers, Thomas, and Wilford (and honestly, about a dozen other reliable sources).  Davis is the *only* source who describes Wisner's "mighty Wurlitzer" as "Operation Mockingbird".  And while Davis does publish three editions from 1979, 1987, and 1991 with additions and updates, at no time does she include any footnotes.  She does have a list of sources and a bibliography, but how are we supposed to take that seriously?  Compare this with Wilford's 62 fucking pages of footnotes citing every word and dotting every i and crossing every t.  And we're supposed to use Davis as a source here?  Are you joking?  Multiple authors, including Loory, were talking about this so-called "operation" way before Davis.  And they refer to it consistently throughout many decades as the "mighty Wurlitzer", a term which can be reasonably traced back to Frank Wisner. Why then, would we consider using the term "Operation Mockingbird", which has no paper trail, no footnotes, and no currency of any kind?  It seriously makes no sense.  There are any number of reasons Davis could have used that term.  Perhaps she was given the wrong information on purpose.  Perhaps her source confused the wiretapping project for the Wurlitzer operation.  And of course, there's the possibility that she got it right and it was called Operation Mockingbird.  But why would we choose to go with the latter rather than the simplest explanation: that she was just wrong, just like a lot of the material in her book.  Further, why would the operation and the project have the same name when they have two entirely different goals? It makes more sense to go with what we do know and what we can substantiate and verify.  And that means using a more accurate, more precise title. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would we use a source that does not mention "Operation Mockingbird" in an article title "Operation Mockingbird"? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s very simple and easy to understand. There is no evidence that this subject is called "Operation Mockingbird".  Go look at our policies and guidelines about article naming. Davis wants us to believe it is called that, but for some reason, no other subject matter expert agrees with her. Davis was not the first author to write about this subject as I showed above, so for you to say that this subject is only known as "Operation Mockingbird" is untrue. More than five years after this subject had been discussed by numerous authors and referred to as the "mighty Wurlitzer", Davis came out of nowhere and publishes a book, not about this subject, but an unauthorized biography about a newspaper publisher riddled with errors.  This right away doesn’t even begin to meet our most basic guidelines.  Davis isn’t a subject mattter expert like the sources I listed above, and her book isn’t even about this subject. Further, there is no indication that she added a single piece of new information about this topic, and if she did, I would like to see it. The only thing she did was give it a name that nobody had ever used before without any documentation.  I looked at the first and third edition and saw no evidence that other than a new name, she offered new information about this. Why then, would we choose to use her name for this topic when no subject matter expert has ever done so? If Davis’ book had been about this subject, if she was a subject matter expert, and if the book did not have a history of making major errors, than yes, you would have an argument for naming this subject "Operation Mockingbird".  But it doesn’t, so there isn’t a single good reason to use her chosen title.  It’s really simple: we are supposed to use the best sources to come up with the best article titles.  A review of the literature doesn’t support the current title or using Davis to justify it.  We need a subject title that isn’t contaminated by the unsupported claim of an unreliable source.  We have many to choose from, so this insistence on using Davis makes no sense. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about the allegation that the CIA had or has an activity with the name "Operation Mockingbird". It is not about something else. Yes, the CIA has engaged in some or all of the activates mentioned in these allegations and probably will continue to. These things should only be mentioned in this article to give context to the allegations. Whether Davis is or is not a reliable source for any actual activities is moot. Davis introduced the term to the public and so is a source for this article. If the reader wants to read about verified activities of the CIA, they can go read elsewhere, because this article is about the unverified allegation that "Operation Mockingbird" was a thing. What do you think this article is suppose to be about? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised by your reply. Either you did not read what I said or you are repeating a claim that is completely at odds with the available evidence.  This is most certainly *not* an allegation; this is American history, and as an example up above, I cited  four sources: Loory, Powers, Thomas, and Wilford, all of whom have written widely on this subject and whose claims are not in dispute.  Wilford himself has 62 pages of meticulous footnotes that can be cross-referenced, unlike Davis who has zero.  So your argument is inherently defective, I'm afraid.  Are you not reading my comments or are you intentionally ignoring what I've written?  "Operation Mockingbird" is 100% real and substantiated as the "mighty Wurlitzer" program run by Frank Wisner.  However, what is not real and substantiated is the term "Operation Mockingbird", which Davis is alone in using in opposition to all reliable sources on the subject.  Is that clear?  I hope it is.  Because there is no reason why we should be using an unsubstantiated and untraceable and unprovable term for a real and well documented program. Davis came very late to this topic, perhaps five years after it had already been proven.  So why then are you choosing to use her term for this subject and calling it an allegation?  You realize, your argument does not make any sense, right? In the unusual case that you still don't get it, the only way you can justify your argument is to show that the claim made by Davis is unique and different from all of the other sources that came before her.  Of course, we both know you can't do this, because the only thing Davis has contributed to this subject is a unique name ("Operation Mockingbird") that nobody has been able to substantiate.  That doesn't change the underlying content.  Are you going to actually argue with a straight face that Davis' use of a unique name for this subject turns all the available evidence into an "allegation" and counters all the investigatory journalism on this subject that came before and after her?  Not only is that entirely absurd, it's unsupportable.  The only allegation under discussion here, and I repeat just in case you choose to ignore it again: the only allegation under discussion here is Davis' unusual claim that this program was called "Operation Mockingbird".  There is no conceivable reason that I can possibly imagine as to why we would discuss this subject under the rubric of an article title that nobody uses in the expert literature.  The only justifiable reason that one would do so, so it appears, is to make the false claim that this entire topic is an "allegation".  That's incredibly intellectually dishonest, so I hope it isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you want to start another article or add to a different one, because this one only about Operation Mockingbird. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is *not* about "Operation Mockingbird", a subject *that does not exist* and is not supported by our best sources. This article is about, and I quote the New York Times from December 26, 1977, the "Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the C.I.A.", also known as “Wisner's Wurlitzer".   The NYT followed this up on December 27 of that year with "C.I.A. Established Many Links To Journalists in U.S. and Abroad", which documents what I said above:
 * The agency's long‐standing relationship with American journalists was first called to public attention in 1973, when William E. Colby, then the Director of Central Intelligence, provided reporters in Washington with some of the details on background basis.The Washington Star reported on the practice, and that led to investigations by two Congressional committees. One of the panels, the House Select Committee on Intelligence, will hold hearings on the subject beginning today, and its Senate counterpart is also considering a public inquiry. The issue was renewed three months ago when Carl Bernstein, the freelance investigative reporter, wrote in Rolling Stone magazine that some 400 American journalists had “secretly carried out assignments” for the C.I.A. since the agency's founding in 1947, in many cases with the knowledge and approval of top news executives.
 * Any discussion of the to-date, unsubstantiated claim that "Wisner's Wurlizter" operation was called "Mockingbird", should take place in that centralized location. There is zero rationale or justification for this current article name to exist. It should be a redirect to the parent topic which has the highest quality sources on the subject, sources that do not use the term "Operation Mockingbird" at any time and who do not cite Davis in any of the literature within the last 50 years.  Keeping this subject here does a disservice to our readers and violates just about every policy and guideline regarding article naming and sourcing. When an academic historian like Hugh Wilford writes a 384 page book on this subject with 62 pages of footnotes and doesn't refer to the name "Mockingbird" or Davis as a source, then you know you have a problem.  As I said up above, Davis was a latecomer to this topic.  She published a book five years after this information was released and it was filled with errors and withdrawn by her publisher.  To repeat, for the last fifty years, no reliable sources has cited Davis on this subject.  There is no reason we should use her as a source for this subject, and there is no reason we should use her term for the article name.  This is exceptionally clear. Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so this is what you should do. Start an article titled "Wisner's Wurlizter". If it does not get delete for any reason and it grows to be a better article than this one (not hard), then we merge this into that. Have fun and be WP:BOLD. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an entirely open question as to what this article should be called. And your most recent proposal in the above reply is not entirely without merit; in fact, it is both reasonable and acceptable, although it is unlikely to withstand our article naming conventions. The question about the new title remains, and I'm afraid I haven't put enough thought into it just yet, but it's on my mind.  Previously, I have recommended redirecting this current version to  CIA influence on public opinion, but even that admittedly falls short.  The subsection in that article, CIA and mass media, definitely comes closer, but is far too vague.  By my reading of the literature, the new proposed title should have the term "anticommunism" and perhaps "news" or "journalism" in it, as the propaganda effort dealt specifically with those two things, among others.  Perhaps something along the lines of a subtopic beneath the History of the CIA and the media during the Cold War (1947-1975), still yet to be determined. So I thank you for your reasonable and considerate reply, even if you intended it otherwise.  With that said, I am far more curious (genuinely curious, I'm not being facetious) about why you think this subject should be treated here, rather than at a new title (to be determined) that is more accommodating to the larger scope and adheres to reliable sources (many of which I've mentioned up above).  In other words, why are you wedded to the idea of "Operation Mockingbird", when none of our best sources use the term? Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent revert
I just want to point out that I just reverted to the consensus version even though it is wrong. The reason other editors are continuing to remove "alleged" is because they are correct. This subject is not alleged, it is documented and proven to a certain level. What is alleged, are the claims by Davis and the use of her operation designation. This is yet another reason why I maintain (per the above) that it is essential to change the article title and the scope. This is not alleged by any stretch of the imagination, and the corpus of reliable sources demonstrate that fact. Davis is not cited by any of these sources nor do they use her book (which is primarily a biography, and does not focus on the CIA). It remains entirely unclear why this subject is discussed here using her book and operation designation when the majority of sources on the subject do not. This goes against our policies and guidelines on article naming, reliable sources, and verification. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Repalce "alleged" with "documented"
Here's some primary sources: - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/06555844 - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/PROJECT%20MOCKINGBIRD%5B15770719%5D.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/ciasuseofjournal00unit.pdf Alleoscar (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that is some cool stuff I have not seen before! The first two regarding "Project Mockingbird" go in the article Project Mockingbird. That is the documented project. The last one goes in CIA influence on public opinion, which could use a lot of clean up. This article is about the allegation that the CIA had or has a large scale activity with the name "Operation Mockingbird", which has never been reliably documented. Apparently, the phrase has been use to refer to various alleged conspiracies that may or may not have borne the title "Operation Mockingbird" and also just to any or all alleged or documented activities to influence public opinions. But as far as I can tell there has never been a documented activity with the exact title "Operation Mockingbird". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like “glane23” keeps adding the word “alleged” back in and tells everyone to get consensus here before removing the word. Yet he’s said nothing here 66.76.118.142 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)