Talk:Sergey Kislyak

Ok I'm going to make a stand here regarding Sergey being a spy.
Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons states: ''"Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources."

CNN is the sole source for this accusation so far that Sergey is a top spy guy. CNN is using anonymous sources in their article.

Wikipedia Biography of Living persons states: ''"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."

To be a foreign spy on American soil is a crime punishable by death. So, this allegation is no small matter. If it turned out to be false, that would be terrible for this man.


 * No, because he has diplomatic immunity. We'd just expel him, like we've done to thousands of other spies before him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.8.134 (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The Russian Press Secretary rebuked the allegation in a quote here: http://tass.ru/politika/4065425

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Department also attacked the allegation in a quote here: http://baltnews.ee/in_russia/20170302/1015758159.html

There were also some ambassadors attacking it elsewhere.

Anyway, the point is I don't think the allegation that he is a criminal spy is good enough for wikipedia when it only has one real source in the entire world. If the US government officially calls him a spy, then perhaps that is reason to put it in the article. But if it is only from unnamed sources from CNN, it simply isnt good enough. CNN's source is from "senior government officials" who are eitheir presently in government or retired. This could mean they asked Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders if he was a spy and it would work. Just not good enough. I am removing the allegation until there is more evidence. It is not keeping with the guidelines of the Biography of Living PersonsGunnar123abc (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed and well stated. Thanks for the revert on this. Shaded0 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss it on the talk page rather than edit war (erring on the side of omission). Please don't make me protect the page. El_C 18:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as I feared. I've protected the page for a few hours to motivate participants to discuss the issue on the talk page. Please don't make me protect the page for longer. El_C 18:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A debate similar to this is occuring on the Jeff Sessions Talk page, because there also the spy allegation is thrown around. The living person guideline says that it applies everywhere, so I tried to put forth the same argument but still being debated. (my argument was not as well presented there. I falsly used weasel as one of the reasons to remove it, but reading that again, I realize if the source uses weasel names than wikipedia should as well) If ever there is more sources for this spy thing besides the anonymous officials, I would like to support its addition to the article. otherwise, I think it should stay offGunnar123abc (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I added a warning template to the IP warning about this editwar behavior. I'll review the post you sent on the Jeff Sessions page. Thanks. Shaded0 (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I am looking at the source. This is a CNN publication, and it tells:


 * What's the problem? This is well sourced and therefore not a BLP violation per "Public figures. I think telling something like: CNN reported that "according to current and former senior US government officials, Kislyak is considered by US intelligence to be one of Russia's top spies and spy-recruiters in Washington." would be fine. "..." is important to include because this is direct quotation. My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But this should not be in lede. This is a controversy which needs to be described per NPOV in body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, you guys are really having it out in here. DanHoelck (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Network
I am looking at the network of connections as provided by The Washington Post, and the subject of the page was shown the central figure in the network. This network should probably be described on the page, and probably on other pages... My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)