Talk:U.S. officials disclose Russian think tank plans outlining interference in 2016 U.S. presidential election
Review of revision 4308979 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 4308979 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4308979 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
@Darkfrog24: It might have been useful to bring out, in some manner and of course with suitable attributions, the point that the information was classified so that exposing the identities of the sources would subject them to prosecution. Especially since (I am reminded by the opinions page) ranting against anonymous sources is currently a popular line of bullshit. Just a thought. --Pi zero (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I had to read this a couple times to parse it. You mean "The information was classified so that anyone who exposed the sources would be vulnerable to prosecution." Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, the anonymity was for a good reason (so we're told). --Pi zero (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)