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

Biography: Science and Academia 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 This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 9 sections are present.

Don't we normally include something about the individual's parents? The German name form "Stefan" would indicate German resp. German-Jewish descent.Rheinvolk (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

remove paragraphs on Halper's involvement in the 2016 US Presidential election. This story is not backed up by verified and trustworthy sources. I would delete these segments until more information is available. Torkildl (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The text is sourced to three reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the first paragraph is an opinion and not supported by its references #s 3, 4, and 5</big:

  "In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, Halper 
   allegedly mishandled information pertinent to the Hillary 
   Clinton presidential campaign of 2016.[3][4][5]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjcpaulsen (talk • contribs) 10:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Anybody know where he grew up and what high school(s) he attended? Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of an educational accomplishment in 1971 should be put in between the two other degrees dated 1967 and 2004. It should read as:

Stefan A. Halper^[1] graduated from Stanford University in 1967. He also received a D.Phil. from the University of Oxford in 1971.^[2][3] He went on to gain his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in 2004. He was appointed director of American studies at the University of Cambridge's longstanding Department of Politics and International Studies.

-- 50.47.104.180 (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His Oxford award was made in 2001 not 1971. There is a Freedom of Information request pending to confirm this with the University. Cannot say more until results received. He did not complete his studies in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5CB0:CD00:A436:78CC:2F8E:3E3 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say if the entirety of his work products were classified, presumably some were. However the contract descriptions are currently noted as "classified" but are public information, and are included in the FPDS entries already cited [1]. I would suggest listing the descriptions or removing the column so as to not feed into the current speculation regarding their nefarious purpose any more than necessary.

An alternate, more human-readable list of the descriptions can be seen here: https://govtribe.com/vendor/halper-stefan-great-falls-va

The descriptions are:

HQ003412C0039 - DIRECT LABOR ^[1]

HQ003414C0076 - RESEARCH AND STUDIES - THE YEAR 2030 ^[2]

HQ003415C0100 - RUSSIA-CHINA RELATIONSHIP STUDY ^[3]

HQ003416P0148 - INDIA AND CHINA ECON STUDY - Base Period (12 Months) ^[4]

HQ003416P0148 - DIRECT LABOR - Option Period (6 Months) ^[5]

Note: Halper published the 2013 ONA report, China: The Three Warfares, during that first contract period ^[6]. I don't know if that would be worth tacking on as a footnote to the award description or using to flesh out the verbiage in this section?

JourneymanGoogleSearcher (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that it should be "United States government research (2012–2018)," as that last option period just wrapped up in March. JourneymanGoogleSearcher (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI/CIA are deep in the mud with domestic politics - who would have guessed? 2601:181:8301:4510:1168:C377:D816:9F38 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are many references for this.

They list the actual documents regarding the arrest and court proceedings for case 1:94-po-00199.

One of them is Court Listener, A Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6345826/united-states-v-halper/

BneiBrakPhone (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This shows the list of crimes: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6345826/parties/united-states-v-halper BneiBrakPhone (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources such as public records may not be used to support claims about living people, as per policy: WP:BLPPRIMARY. Minor traffic offenses and drug arrests are not necessarily encyclopedic, unless discussed in mainstream reliable sources. So far, you have presented nothing but partisan fake news pages and scandal sites, which are unacceptable in Wikipedia. The material has been removed, and it should not be inserted without reliable sources and consensus that it's appropriate and properly weighted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where that would be published? and should it not be in the Blp? Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spygate is mentioned 3 times and stated as an absolute fact to be "thoroughly debunked". Is that still the consensus of Editors to parrot that terminology and conclusion within this Blp? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) (Blocked account)[reply]

Of course. See our article about the Spygate (conspiracy theory). Reliable sources have not shown Trump's false allegations to be anything other than a conspiracy theory. Only unreliable sources still push those false claims. -- Valjean (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean You already expressed your thoughts about RCI on the reliable sources noticeboard but other editors disagreed with you. There is no consensus on RCI, it can absolutely be used. Nweil (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even when conspiracy theorists are writing? I think not. If the content is due, other sources should be used. -- Valjean (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the whole thing:

BOLD added

Valjean (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBFC reports zero failed fact checks in the past 5 years. Please point to a case where they have published non-factual information.Nweil (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such websites won't trump WP:RSP. For another, much better, media bias site, check the Media Bias Chart and search for RealClearPolitics in the search bar on the left side of the page. They place it in the "Some reliability issues and / or extremism" grouping. -- Valjean (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]