Talk:Unmasking by U.S. intelligence agencies

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 October 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Espionage Low‑importance

	Unmasking by U.S. intelligence agencies is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unmasking aides to Donald Trump

This article covers specific examples related to Trump to an extent that tends to slant the article toward recent events. It does not seem to present a dispassionate global view of the subject. I have tagged the section as such so that it can be discussed and addressed by editing.- Mr X 18:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is primarily an American one because of U.S. law. However, I welcome addition of material about other countries. Indeed, I am curious which other countries do and do not have unmasking procedures. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened the Trump section and expanded the other sections, and will remove the tag. The template instructions say: "If an article is tagged with this, improve the article by adding content important to the topic and trimming or deleting non-important content." So, I plan to remove the tag. If the sources are predominantly dated 2017, then it is not undue weight for this article to accurately reflect that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Trump section

I object to this edit which blanked an entire section, including ten footnotes. Most of those footnotes mention “unmasking” in the article titles, and all discuss “unmasking” in their article bodies. This is highly relevant material that was deleted, and I’d support article deletion if this key material is removed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this is not the subject I thought it was. My mistake. I was under the impression this was about subject related to the ethics of espionage. Not about a US centric media 'leaks' issue. Dysklyver 16:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unmasking aides to Donald Trump, or other specific persons.

This section says in part, "Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice made requests to unmask members of the Trump campaign and transition,", citing this source in support. That source says in part, "White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter. ... The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally."

I think that this is an example of what I take to be editorial shorthand where ~~such~~ blanket unmasking combined with searching unmasked names for names of interest; e.g., describing such activity targeting Michael Flynn in shorthand as, "unmasking General Flynn". I think I have this right, but I'm not 100.00 percent sure of that. If I don't have this right, I would appreciate being set straight.

If I do have that right, I'm wondering what regular editors of this article think about whether this relatively high-context style of communication here, and/or in Wikipedia articles in general, is appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unmasking Flynn

Politrukki, people are unmasked because their identity is unknown. No one would request Flynn to be unmasked if they already knew who it was. "Flynn was unmasked" suggests that he was exposed, perhaps while involved in a classified operation, thereby risking national security. But that's not what happened and it's the stuff of conspiracy theories. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one tried to unmask Flynn. They tried to unmask someone suspiciously colluding with Russian intelligence in its election interference. That person happened to be Flynn, and he later lied repeatedly about it. Of course, Trump pardoned him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't recommend the Washington Examiner, this article is good: US attorney said Flynn’s name was not masked before leak, sought to absolve unmaskers -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a transparent WP:COATRACK—it masquerades as an article about an intelligence practice, but in fact is clearly written and intended to promote a modern US right-wing conspiracy theory about Donald Trump and the Russia investigation. That's the root of a lot of the cognitive dissonance here. On that topic, to the extent that the article discusses Flynn, it needs to more accurately reflect available reliable sources. See, for example, "The final, brutal collapse of GOP’s big Michael Flynn conspiracy theory" (Washington Post, 1 June 2022), which clearly contextualizes the whole "unmasking" thing as a partisan effort to create FUD and to undermine the Russia investigation. To the extent that we cover Flynn here, our article needs to reflect that reality rather than amplifying the partisan conspiracy theory. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]