User talk:2600:1700:3AE0:8180:F0F5:1FD:60EA:E1BA

April 2022
Please stop making your faulty edit to a roster of ex-U.S. intelligence officials, as at. (1) The NPR source you cite makes a small correction on a small part of the original article. It says contrary to what they had stated, U.S. Intelligence did not make a statement that the laptop story was discredited. It does not say that the story has not been discredited in general. In fact, the article still says "The last gasp of Giuliani's campaign against the Bidens featured a laptop supposedly obtained from sources that would document the younger Biden's drug use and other offenses. Numerous news organizations cast doubt on the credibility of the laptop story." (2) Are all of these biographies you're adding the edit to part of the current U.S. Intelligence agencies that the NPR was referring to? Does the edit even have anything to do with the individuals who are the topic of the articles you are changing? signed, Willondon (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Where is it contradicted that the story has been proven to be Russian disinformation by the US Intelligence agency? Since it has not been demonstrated to be Russian disinformation by the US Intelligence agency, you are a political hack not interested in real information. 2600:1700:3AE0:8180:F0F5:1FD:60EA:E1BA (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you were a legitimate "editor", you would add a counterpoint. Since you can't add another piece of information, you revert to book burning! 2600:1700:3AE0:8180:F0F5:1FD:60EA:E1BA (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * First, can we discuss whether this is relevant to all the articles you are adding it to? The fact that you are making the same edit across more than a dozen biographical articles suggests that it is not actually relevant to them all. It suggests that the information you want to add really belongs in another, single, article.  signed, Willondon (talk)  16:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am considering this but that would not make sense. There are a lot of entries about people attending XYZ college. Using this reasoning, there should just be one single article of who attended XYZ college. In my case, I am pointing out all of the signors of ABC letter that attributed Russian conspiracy and now it has been revealed that the ABC letter is the true conspiracy (not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy in the classic pre-political meaning). There is no evidence for this Russian conspiracy, the NPR claim that there was evidence was destroyed. Further, lack of evidence disproving a theory is NOT PROOF OF A THEORY and this cannot be a reason for silencing speech and burning books! 2600:1700:3AE0:8180:F0F5:1FD:60EA:E1BA (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) It seems your reasoning is backward. There sort of is a single "article" of who attended XYZ college, in that the college article often has a section called "Notable Alumni". And it's true that the attendance is often also noted across a number of individual biographies. But it seems like what you're doing is taking a college fact, such as "the entire science building was destroyed in a chemical explosion", and then copying that fact into the individual alumnus biographies, when it's not really relevant to the articles of people who attended XYZ college. That the current U.S. intelligence community (let's call it "USIC") has not issued a statement discrediting the laptop story, doesn't really say anything about the ex-USIC members who have signed a letter casting suspicion on the story.
 * (2) So, it seems there are some missing links in your chain of reasoning. I understand the people who signed letter ABC are ex-members of the USIC. There may be a few who are still involved in the USIC, but when National Public Radio talks about a statement from the USIC, that's not the same thing as the group of people who signed the letter. And the NPR made an error (which they corrected, part of what makes them a reliable source) in saying the USIC had "discredited the laptop story", when in fact "U.S. intelligence officials have not made a statement to that effect". That doesn't mean the USIC hasn't discredited the laptop story; it means they have not made a statement to that effect. Given the nature of the USIC's work, often politically sensitive, and often secretive in nature, you shouldn't be surprised to learn that the USIC does not make official statements about everything they know to be true, or false. And it doesn't mean the ex-USIC letter signers are incorrect, either. You seem to want to take the fact that NPR said the USIC had discredited the story, then said they misspoke, to mean some explosive revelation that the story was true all along, and thus, that the letter signers' suspicions were wrong, or even lies. It just doesn't follow. And the NPR is apparantly still standing by their statement that "Numerous news organizations cast doubt on the credibility of the laptop story." And I haven't heard that the letter signers have recanted (the biography articles of whom you are adding this tiny, irrelevant fact to).
 * So, it would be preferable if you could at least identify an article to which this information does apply, before we get into the issue of synthesis and whether or not the NPR correction means what you think it means.  signed, Willondon (talk)  19:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)