Talk:David Satter

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Chicago This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please explain why did you delete this. These are obviously sourced and relevant materials.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please talk and explain what sources tell he is a "conspiracy theorist" instead of blindly reverting me. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Satter emphasizes the importance of psychology..." is not sourced - it is OR.

"Satter noted that Russia has one of the lowest birth rates..." simply isn't relevant enough to his biography.

Angus Macqueenn is the reviewer who found "some similarities between his book Darkness at Dawn and Putin's Russia" - there are not multiple reviewers, and the claim must be attributed.

The three ELs I removed are unnecessary and present a biased selection.

Satter claimed, that the bombings were a conspiracy by FSB; thus, he is a conspiracy theorist. Offliner (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• The point about "conspiracy theorist". All your conclusions here are classic WP:OR. Which source tells "Satter is a conspiracy theorist"?Biophys (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• No, this is all sourced to his book. Do you want direct citation? I can certainly provide it.Biophys (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Once, again, Satter described this as important ideas in the Introductions of his books. I can provide direct citation if you want.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

This was a largely unreferenced biography of a living person, making all sorts of controversial claims on the basis of little or no supporting references. I've stubbed it. If you want to expand it, ensure that any expansion is fully in line with the standards of writing, sourcing and balance expected of BLPs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

And, just to be clear, a rewrite should not give undue space to Satter's works. If they were notable, they'd have their own article. A short description of his books is fine, but the article is about Satter. Using this article as a surrogate means to give more coverage conspiracy theories about the apartment bombings, already covered in Russian apartment bombings, is most unlikely to produce acceptable results. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed on both counts. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Satter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927065706/http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SatterHouseTestimony2007.pdf to http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SatterHouseTestimony2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

link. My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the section "Russian apartment bombings", claims made by Satter are interspersed with statements of fact backed by references. This appears to be credible evaluation, however a closer inspection of references shows that all the claims are in fact made by none other than David Satter. Two of the articles are directly written by him, and the claims he makes that are supported by Cardin's report cite Satter as the source.

The only claim in this section that can be corroborated is the diplomatic cable record. He did in fact make the request; it is documented as " David Satter v. Dep't of Justice, et al., No. 16-cv-01749 (D.D.C.) " with a request ID of F-2016-08858. However attempting to retrieve it from the US State Department website fails, and therefore the statement cannot actually be verified.

The article wording has been changed to show that this is in fact his personal opinion, merely reinforced by his prior expressions of his opinion. JSory (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply