Talk:Spencer Ackerman/Archive 1

Confusing
At the beginning of the article, it says that Spencer Ackerman "now writes .. for the Washington Independent," and that he "was previously a blogger and senior correspondent for The American Prospect".

But further down, it says that "within 24 hours of being fired by The New Republic, Ackerman gained his current job at competing magazine, The American Prospect."

So is the job at TAP one that he held previously or is holding currently? --No-itsme (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

JournoList / Daily Caller
The Daily Caller has published more emails from JournoList, this time concerning Mr. Ackerman. ("Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright") Re: David Weigel


 * "Part of me doesn’t like this shit either, but what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”


 * I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.


 * And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.''

&mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Who stole the emails? Until that's clear, we cannot trust them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.235.3 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you like to explain how you can make this argument for this Wiki entry, but you use the exact same source to edit the wiki entry for Fred Barnes? Gabrielsutherland (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
This section -- from it's unsupported claim of "conspiracy" to its citations only to political opinion columns -- has a serious POV problem. Facts people. Facts supported by something more than professional opinion. MisterJayEm (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Journolist Addition
The discussion of this seems to have died off at the BLPN. I suggest the following addition, preferably the whole thing or most of, it to provide context,
 * He wrote concerning Jeremiah Wright,
 * Part of me doesn’t like this sh*t either. But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals...It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically. And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

This is sourced to the Daily Caller, but all but the first sentence can be sourced to The Washington Post, Politico, and The Wall Street Journal as well. Drrll (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To those opposed to this addition, are you going to actually discuss this, or are you going to continue to stonewall discussion to try to prevent ANY of this going into the article? Drrll (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you've addressed the issue of undue weight in regards to the appropriateness of dropping a large, inflammatory pull quote in a small article. If you have, please point me to your comments regarding the policy in relation to the article.   Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that a paragraph about something that has received such coverage represents undue weight. My preference is actually to trim the quote, but the issue of context comes up (that can be addressed by sourcing to the Daily Caller article with the context). Here's my suggestion for the trimmed quote:
 * He wrote concerning Jeremiah Wright, "What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. ...let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. ... If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists." Drrll (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Undue weight isn't just about covering the issue in an appropriate matter in proportion to its importance, it's about covering the issue in an appropriate manner in proportion to the rest of the article. A lurid pull quote like that would dominate the article and would be inappropriate under BLP and NPOV rules.  Were the article bigger, I'd be all for expanding the Journolist section in an appropriate manner, as at that point undue wouldn't be a significant issue, though other policies might come into play.  Gamaliel (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting that we use a pull quote, since I've reduced the overall length of the quoted material. As far as it being lurid, I've removed the lurid material such as the "smash it through a plate-glass window" quote (actually there is lurid material in the article now with the “make a niche in your skull” quote in the previous section).  As it stands now, the article talks about Wired supporting him despite what he said on JournoList, but the reader has no idea what he actually did say that could have put his job at risk with Wired. Drrll (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You raise a fair point. I've added a bit of detail that hopefully will clarify things a bit for the reader.  Gamaliel (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's better, but it still leaves the user wondering exactly what he said. If you look at the BLPs of some conservative journalists, you'll see there considerable discussion about controversial things they've said, such as Brit Hume and John Gibson, along with much descriptive text outside the quotes.  I'm suggesting adding just the quote without descriptive text.  Again, this material has appeared in major reliable sources, not just The Daily Caller. Drrll (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * John Gibson is a professional provocateur, so most of his career is going to be made up of controversial statements. But like Brit Hume, Ackerman is a professional journalist with some opinions about stuff.  Most of the article should be about his career.  I'd lean towards your position if this article more the length of Hume's, which itself really should be longer. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's true that Gibson is currently a "professional provocatuer" as a radio talk show host, but 75% of the article is about comments he made since about the time he turned 60. While the Hume article is longer than Ackerman's, the single comment about Tiger Woods take up about 25% of the article.  So including some JournoList quotes in Ackerman's bio isn't out of line.  At a minimum, the widely reported "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists" should be included. Drrll (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that section in Hume's article is inappropriately long. Obviously, an undue violation in another article doesn't justify one here.  You should know that's a silly argument.  If you are going to compare this to other articles, pick ones that comply with WP policy and guidelines.  Gamaliel (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have compromised a great deal, reducing the quote to a fraction of the original size and removing the "lurid" portions. It's time for you to compromise. Here's what the section would look like after adding the quote:
 * Ackerman was a member of the private Google Groups forum JournoList. Following revelations by The Daily Caller of comments on the list, Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel was forced to resign. "Incendiary" JournoList comments by Ackerman on topics like the Jeremiah Wright controversy were also revealed by the Caller, such as "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists", but a spokesman for Wired said that Ackerman would keep his job, saying "We hired Spencer Ackerman for his well-informed national security reporting and fully support it. Anyone with access to Google can discover his political leanings."
 * vs.
 * Ackerman was a member of the private Google Groups forum JournoList. Following revelations by The Daily Caller of comments on the list, Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel was forced to resign. "Incendiary" JournoList comments by Ackerman on topics like the Jeremiah Wright controversy were also revealed by the Caller, but a spokesman for Wired said that Ackerman would keep his job, saying "We hired Spencer Ackerman for his well-informed national security reporting and fully support it. Anyone with access to Google can discover his political leanings."
 * As you can see, adding the quote doesn't significantly lengthen the article. Drrll (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me set the record straight before I go out the door and head into the real world. Don't pretend this has been a one sided compromise; if it were up to only me, this wouldn't be mentioned at all.  I have compromised by first not removing it completely and instead writing a short NPOV version, and secondly by a small expansion based on your comments.  This may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is a big deal when we're talking about a small article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I support Gamaliel's edits. It is not appropriate for editors to cherry pick comments made in emails and add them to an encyclopedic article. If a reliable source writes an article focusing on Ackerman, and that source mentions the significance of some comment, then the views of the source might be worth mentioning. The same procedure applies to a book written by a subject: it is original research (WP:SYNTH) to cherry pick comments from any primary source. A secondary source is needed to provide an analysis of the context and significance. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this isn't sourced to a primary source, it's sourced to secondary sources reporting the the quote, including The Daily Caller, The Washington Post, Politico, The WSJ, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Drrll (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Danger Room FBI Series
Hey all. I've just added a couple of lines about Ackerman's series on anti-Muslim bias in FBI training materials. I think it's fairly important because, as I wrote in the article, it has led to the FBI launching a comprehensive review of its training materials. Also, Ackerman cites it as the "story he's proudest of producing thus far." See Attackerman post "The Realest Shit I Ever Wrote." Now, on to the nitty gritty: I describe the series as "alleging anti-Islamic bias in FBI training materials." I went with this language because I figure there are some folks on here who probably disagree with the idea that the materials are actually biased. Personally, I feel that Ackerman's reporting is pretty solid. If there's no opposition in a few days, I'd like to change that "alleged" to some stronger language like "revealed" or "presented evidence of." But maybe I'm just a crazed liberal. What say we all? Another thing: I've only cited the initial article in the series. Should I pile on with citations to subsequent installments? "FBI Teaches Agents: 'Mainstream' Muslims Are 'Violent, Radical'" "Senators Blast FBI Terror-Training 'Lies'" "Video: FBI Trainer Says Forget 'Irrelevant' al-Qaida, Target Islam" "FBI's Key Muslim Ally: Bigoted Briefings 'Make My Job Harder'" "New Evidence of Anti-Islam Bias Underscores Deep Challenges for FBI's Reform Pledge" SenorCrunchy (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

don't think Ackerman is at WIRED any longer - seems to have moved to guardiannews.com
Spencer Ackerman @attackerman

'''U.S. national security editor at the Guardian. Ex-WIRED.''' Personal-vice-professional views here, but you already knew that because this is 2013.

D.C. · guardiannews.com

https://twitter.com/attackerman

'''Spencer Ackerman is national security editor for Guardian US. A former senior writer for Wired''', he won the 2012 National Magazine Award for Digital Reporting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/spencerackerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.130.93 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs substantial cuts
Right now the entry is way, way too long, chiefly because of significant overuse of primary sources. To conform with Wikipedia’s priorities of providing a concise encyclopedic summary and prohibiting original research, it needs to be cut way to back until it is mainly based on reliable secondary source commentary with only sparing citations of Ackerman’s articles (e.g. if there’s a true controversy and you need to cite exactly what he wrote.) Pinging who I see has added to the entry substantially; I want to give you first bite at the apple on making the relevant revisions as I know it’s frustrating to see another editor make big cuts to your work. But I can also circle back and get to trimming as time allows, if need be. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll let you make whatever changes you feel necessary. The article should be fine as along as you keep the main parts of each section.WRD2030 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok—I’m likely to remove everything that relies entirely on primary sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that really necessary? WRD2030 (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you feel it’s possible for you to rewrite relying on secondary sources, and lose less material that way, please do. But it’s 42 paragraphs, far too much for me to re-research what can be reattributed to secondary sources to reduce WP:OR. It also just needs a big cut so as to give an encyclopedic overview of his biography rather than every detail. (Relying on what got notice in secondary sources is how we know which details to include.) To give you an idea, I suggest you check out the pages of journalists in relatively similar positions, David Farenthold (17 grafs) or Wesley Lowery (9, could probably be expanded). I realize this is your first entry so these policies may be a bit counterintuitive; I hope it’s clarifying to see these examples that more draw on what others wrote about the journalist, rather than on their writings directly. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC).
 * Okay, I see. I think that can be done to minimize the cutting. WRD2030 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, if you’re willing, that’s great. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , checking to see if you’re still planning on addressing the above concerns or if I should get started. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I plan on addressing the issues mentioned above. Since I work full time and cannot do this in one sitting, I plan to do this in my sandbox first and then carry the changes over to the article. Thanks, WRD2030 (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , ok, sounds like that could take a while (I did check to see whether you had been editing in your sandbox and sent the ping since a week had gone by). I have to say I share Loksmythe’s concerns that the current version is additionally promotional, at least, so I am going to go ahead and make some cuts and if there are things you feel should be added back based on secondary sources when you get to it, go for it. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , No problem. I will work on it as time becomes available. WRD2030 (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've finally found time to make changes to the article and will continue to do so over the next few days, as time allows. WRD2030 (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)