This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 22 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||
Problematic misuse of two refs
These refs are only used in the lead, and have been co-opted for conclusions in the future. That's wrong, as they can only be used for when they were said. They also need attribution and use in the body of the article. As of February 2018 [update], the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated. References
Deserves response...creation process of ListA comment in a "merge" RfC deserves some response, but obviously not in the RfC, since it's off-topic (it's not an AfD):
I'll likely respond in a separate section when I have more time. I have always been upfront about the creation process for the article, and have explained how and why I chose the 42 (originally many more) RS used. The references exist to document the existence and wording of the allegations. Period. They are not chosen for their POV on the subject. Some were originally chosen because they "also" had interesting commentary, but those comments are now moved to the main article. Any RS can be used to document the "existence" of an allegation, and since some of these allegations are serious (one is "salacious"), BLP's "
WP:PUBLICFIGURE" applies, so they must be documented by multiple RS. If I had chosen to only use the dossier itself, IOW to perform OR, I could have listed far more allegations, but I followed our policies and only listed those allegations which had received attention in multiple RS. That's what we are supposed to do. Since the objection mentions FoxNews as a source, I could also do that. Although their strong GOP bias renders them mostly unusable for accuracy (too much spin and outright proven lies) on the subject of the dossier (for commentary they might still have their place, since bias is not alone a reason to exclude a source), they might still be usable for documenting the existence of some allegations. I'm sure they have done that, but not nearly as much as most other sources, because that would be against their mission, which is to deny and deflect. They don't want their viewers to know that some of the allegations exist. Anything negative about the GOP or Trump is generally buried or ignored. Since the objector thinks the lack of FoxNews refs is a problem, I'll start searching for them. Then I may respond on the talk page. Help in finding those FoxNews sources would be appreciated. Drive-by criticism, especially non-specific, on talk pages, RfCs, and AfDs is unhelpful. People who just criticize, without constructively contributing on talk pages and actually trying to improve articles, are a dime-a-dozen here, and they are disruptive editors. For the purposes of that article they are WP:NOTHERE, and sometimes topic bans should be used to stop their drive-by disruptions. If they don't have something constructive to say or do, then they should stay away. Disagreement can be constructive, but it's often too general to be anything other than irritating bitching. Constructive criticism is different and welcome. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Interesting and misleading comments about creation of allegation list article
This is simply false, and it's even worse because this has been debunked repeatedly and the creation process and reasoning explained in detail. The irony is that above she describes and approves of the very process used. There is no evidence of any SYNTH violation or that there were any "cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative". SMH. The allegations are what they are, and the only ones used were those which were commented on in RS, never any OR or POV choosing. The RS dictated which ones to pick. Their POV is what it is. I have no choice or influence on that.
A coordinated effort to discredit or halt the investigationSaving here: In response to a discussion about the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), specifically about what became this heading ( Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation), Legacypac wrote: "It's all a coordinated effort." How true, and much more than we at first realized. This "coordinated effort" goes way back, with witting and unwitting players working together. The Trump–Russia dossier ties this continuing and coordinated effort back to cooperation established at least eight years before Trump's election, and then alleges the current existence of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin." It furthermore alleges that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership" to defeat "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON", and that there was a "Kremlin campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON". The proof of that collaboration is abundant. Nearly every member of the Trump administration was in repeated contacts with Russians, and repeatedly lied about it. Not only that, they were caught in electronic surveillance talking about it. The micro-targeted election campaign involved a very closely coordinated teamwork involving Jared Kushner, Cambridge Analytica, Facebook's and Twitter's marketing departments, Russian hackers, and WikiLeaks (IOW Russian intelligence), all exploiting a well-developed GOP voter suppression machine which had a track record for successfully guaranteeing Republican victories, even when there were Democratic majorities. The system was nearly foolproof. Respect for democracy was totally gone. The successful election is the fruition of their efforts, and proof of the danger this cooperation poses to democracy and American freedoms. Fortunately they got busted. Now that corrupt system needs to be broken down. Paul Wood, a subject expert, has plainly described this coordinated effort:
The Putin/Trump/GOP/FoxNews/Breitbart/InfoWars/RT/Sputnik coordination/conduit is very active. Note how the ends meet, and how the fake news was directed at InfoWars and Breitbart, and then trickled up, but very little being spread by MSM. Serious news outlets usually reject fake news, but the fringe right-wing (and to a lesser degree the fringe left-wing) has been very open to spreading it. Starting at the extreme fringes, conspiracy theory websites love this stuff. They have no crap filters and believe anything fed to them by Russians, as long as it supports their pro-Trump, anti-Clinton, agenda. InfoWars, WND ( birther central), The Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge are unreliable sources which fall in this class. Moving a tiny bit closer to center, Breitbart News, with its support of James O'Keefe, has actively supported and spread deceptively edited videos which are very misleading, and they have been busted and debunked. Trump is friends with Breitbart's Steve Bannon, InfoWars's Alex Jones, and Fox News's Roger Ailes, and he believes their propaganda. He has no crap filters, and yet he's president. The Russian government has a clear line/conduit of misinformation feeding directly to the president, and it informs his tweets and policies. The top GOP leadership are all corrupted and compromised, because they KNEW (especially the Gang of Eight members) that Russia was interfering in the election and helping the Trump team, but McConnell and Ryan ordered them all to stay quiet, in spite of the active threat. For them, it was more important to get Trump elected than to protect America. They also accepted illegal Russian money for their campaigns, so they are compromised in that way too. Note that some players may be somewhat unwitting, in that they think they are patriots "fighting the good fight" to protect America from an evil (non-existent) "deep state", not realizing they are parroting Putin and serving nefarious Russian interests. This latest phase of collaboration started with the successful attempt, using Russian help, to get Trump elected. According to what Russians have publicly stated, he started to (secretly) plan the election with Russians back in 2013, and they have bragged, on TV, about helping him and about how the Russians elected the American president. In that process a lot MORE kompromat was created, because collusion/conspiracy/secrecy always creates kompromat. It's being used to pressure Trump, IOW a successfully activated blackmail threat, but he willingly plays along because he has no loyalties but to himself. He wanted to win, and wanted this help. With or without kompromat he would have done it. Now that the plot is being uncovered and investigated, the operation has shifted into a defensive obstruction and cover-up effort. They are now fighting for survival and to stay out of jail, and some are already confessing and cutting plea deals. Exciting times! So is the new heading ("Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation") accurate? Yes, but still pretty mild. With time we will be able to write "Attempts to obstruct justice" and an article entitled " Trump-Russia cover-up operation". OK, a few thoughts on the article. You have done a really good job; the introductory paragraphs in particular are well done. The only suggestion I would make in the section headings is to eliminate the separate section “Activated blackmail threat against Trump” and combine it into the preceding section “Kompromat on Trump”. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
So where do we stand on the discussion about merging it into the dossier article vs. keeping it separate? That discussion has pretty much died down; it was started 12 days ago and the last comment was four days ago. It is strongly leaning toward merge - most people seemed to think it would be more useful in the main article than in a separate article - but it is not in “snow” territory. I guess it doesn’t hurt anything to wait for more possible input. I’m not going to close it since I participated in the survey. And of course you shouldn’t either. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
AR-15 articlePlease note you are at 4 reverts. Please self revert the last set of changes since we don't have consensus on the talk page. Springee ( talk) 03:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Gun control discretionary sanctions{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' '''Please carefully read this information:''' The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control|here]]. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact the [[WP:HD|Help desk]] if you have any questions. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User:Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 07:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC) }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->
Copyright vs. Fair UseFWIW, I wholly agree with your analysis on the Andrew McCabe talk page: "I think a major part of the problem is an extreme interpretation of copyright violation taken in isolation from "fair use", which is very elastic. The two must be interpreted in relation to each other, and we should follow the same practices as major newspapers and magazines." and "With more important matters (and more important people and sources), longer exact quotes are justified, sometimes entire paragraphs. That's how fair use works in the real world, i.e. major newspapers and magazines. We should follow their practices." Without a broad interpretation of fair use, modern journalism could not function, analysis of major, complex issues would be nigh impossible, large numbers of journalists would be out of work, and the vast bulk of WP content would need to be taken down. Copyright is enforced primarily to prevent people from profiting from the work of others, but WP has no profit motive, and hence most publishers would actually prefer that WP cite their work, as it drives traffic to their for-profit sites. Cheers soibangla ( talk) 19:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Revision deletionHi BullRangifer. If you have some particular article histories you want me to look at and re-assess, please let me know and I will do so. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 20:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Clarification. Let it die.Can you be more specific on which arguments, with quotes and diffs, you meant in
Special:Diff/828548968 when you said
I'm a bit surprised....and disappointed....that this issue, which was brought to my talk page, has blossomed into a little fire. A small ember which I deliberately let die (I thought), was actually picked up, blown on to keep it alive, brought here, blown up, and now is being blown on a whole lot more. I really don't want this. Let it die. No one has a right to force me to fight when I don't want to. If anything more serious were to happen, I'm fully capable of using dispute resolution processes, notice boards, and escalating things, but I'd rather de-escalate this type of thing. Unfortunately that's not what's happened here. We all have our POV. That's fine by me. I believe in democracy, and a healthy democracy MUST have opposing POV. They must not be suppressed and the opposition eliminated. As you may have noticed in the box at the top, I think it's a strength when editors who hold opposing POV can "sit down" on the talk page and civilly develop content. Editors have POV. That's good. POV warriors don't respect that and stop there. They not only push their own POV, they seek to prevent other POV from being documented. That's harmful. I have often defended content I didn't agree with because it was properly sourced. I'd like to see more of this. Let's all seek to " write for the opponent" when necessary. Can we agree on that? Now you know my thoughts on this, and I don't see an escalation as anything good, so I'm going to hat this. You're welcome to email me if you like. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 03:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Talk:AR-15 style rifleAt 2018-03-06T08:02:56, in the page
history, you made an edit, with the added summary: "
A cool scriptJust came by to see if you had the GoldenRing "generate diff" script. I love it because it allows you to see a diff inlne without leaving the page. There's just one caveat - if you're using an iPad and you've been granted the "rollback" feature, the "see diff" feature sits just above it so if you have fat fingers, you're liable to click the wrong feature (apologies). Atsme 📞 📧 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC) ![]()
About hattingJust to comment: yes, the hatting intimidates me. Yes, it would intimidate anyone. If you want people's comments, leave the discussion open to view. Once it is hatted, the table of contents doesn't even work - and a warning at the top of each thread says the discussion is closed and shouldn't be modified. If you are actually finished with something, hat it. Individually, not everything under a double hat. Or archive it as everyone else does. And if you're not finished with it or are seeking input, leave it open. Just my 2 cents. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Trump and fake news
See: Fake news
A 2018 study [1] by researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter has examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. The findings showed that Trump supporters and older Americans (over 60) were far more likely to consume fake news than Clinton supporters. Those most likely to visit fake news websites were the 10% of Americans who consumed the most conservative information. There was a very large difference (800%) in the consumption of fake news stories as related to total news consumption between Trump supporters (6.2%) and Clinton supporters (0.8%). [1] [2] The study also showed that fake pro-Trump and fake pro-Clinton news stories were read by their supporters, but with a significant difference: Trump supporters consumed far more (40%) than Clinton supporters (15%). Facebook was by far the key "gateway" website where these fake stories were spread, and which led people to then go to the fake news websites. Fact checks of fake news were rarely seen by consumers, [1] [2] with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check. [3] Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." [2]
References
How to evaluate vaccine resources
Reliable sources
Unreliable sources
(*) Wikipedia is an excellent place to start a search for information, but never quote it. Instead, use their vetted sources. Note that the reliability of the source is directly connected with its intended use in the relevant article. A deceptive and unreliable source can be used to document unreliable claims, while reliable sources will be used to document reliable claims and facts.
AEIt's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that Dennis was referring to: "SUMMARY: The article should have a better section on the use of the AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings, and some editors are blocking that strongly enough that I quickly abandoned the thought of trying. That's my concern." -- NeilN talk to me 04:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Guns and crimeLike you, I was surprised to see experienced editors having serious discussions about whether or not mass shootings belong in firearms articles. Part of the problem is a long-standing I opened an RfC at Village Pump to get more eyes on the subject. I'm not asking you to participate, but reading the responses might give you a better idea of the situation at Arbcom. – dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
StormyRegarding this: None of the sources say that Trump denied the affair, as far as I can tell. Hasn't he been silent on the matter?- Mr X 🖋 12:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia gun nuts in the newsWikipedia has been getting some embarrassing coverage because of the gross policy violations of a real cabal of pro-gun Wikipedia editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms who edit gun-related articles. Newsweek discusses how this "group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors tried to hide the true number of mass shootings associated with the AR-15 rifle," and certain editors are named and/or quoted: Their stonewalling serves to protect the National Rifle Association and AR-15 style rifles by erecting a wall between them and Mass shootings in the United States. Their efforts have succeeded so well at keeping the subjects separated that the media has noticed. There is extensive wikilawyering and gaming the sytem going on. It's persistent, extremely aggressive and personal, and violates policies. Refusal to allow mention of mass shootings using the AR-15 in the AR-15 style rifle and Mass shootings in the United States articles has been obvious. The very existence of that lack proves there is a serious problem and requires no further evidence or diffs. Only recently (March 16) has it been grudgingly allowed in the Mass shootings and AR-15 style rifle articles after considerable pressure, warnings, and threats of topic bans from some courageous administrators. That should not have been necessary. Springee has been part of a collaborative effort to include proper material, so they should, in all fairness, get credit for that. Here are some of those articles:
References
Comparison of versions about AR-15s and mass murdersSize calculation 9,233 8,832 + 43 = 8,875 -47 (actually 43 for deleted headings) 9,233 - 8,875 = 358 was actually removed in one way or other Version of section when I added material (+9,233):
Version of section when Springee condensed the section (+8,832):
RevertedHi BR, I noticed this revert. The contrib was from a WikiEd student participant, who seems to be at least trying to do things well. It seems to me that AGF calls for a bit more than an edit comment in such cases, perhaps a quick note to the contrib's talkpage? In this case Ian seems to have covered that off, so no worries. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 16:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Mentioned in mediaBullRangifer, I wanted to let you know about an ANI question I posted that is related to your posts [ "mentioned_by_media"_section_of_a_talk_page?]. I didn't name you in the question because I don't want this to be about you so much as just helping me understand what is OK and not OK when posting and talking about external media coverage. I've thought about mentioning this to you several times because I think posts like this one [ [3]] are very antagonistic. I've mentioned, indirectly, that the content of the Verge article is not factually correct (the other articles are simply parrots of the Verge). I don't expect any retractions from the media (though I found it gratifying that a number of comments on the Verge article found the article questionable). What I think is improper is to repeatedly post the article in a way that suggests a moral high ground in what is a content dispute. Posting articles that essentially slander editors here is can't be seen as creating a more cooperative editing environment. That's how I read it and I hope you will consider that even if we don't agree on content we (and the other involved editors) are making good faith efforts to improve these articles. Springee ( talk) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
So I have a bit of time and thought I would share my take on the four articles you posted (thanks BTW for the recent edits to the summaries). I basically see the News Week, and Haaretez as repeating the claims of The Verge. The Week was of course its own thing. Anyway, The Verge's author did ask me for a quote but just 24 hours before. His question was vague (other than making the tone of the article clear). I decided not to reply and I don't think a well thought out reply would have mattered. I think there were two things the author got really wrong. First, the sequence of events related to the AR-15 pages. As I recall and based on my limited exposure to the article prior to this year, there were kind of two debates going on. The first was the scope of the article. The Colt AR-15 article, as I gather, started as the general AR-15 page. My early involvement was around the time there was a big debate about what the scope of the AR-15 page should be. Some editors felt that, since AR-15 was a trademarked name it should only be about the "Colt AR-15". So the people who were trying to keep general AR-15 material (primarily crime material) out were doing so based on keeping the article on topic (thus not a PAG violation). As I gathered, the outcome of this debate was to change what was the AR-15 article to the Colt AR-15 article and then start a second article that was the generic page. Of course that didn't go smoothly. First, until recently, the AR-15 search term went to the Colt article vs a disambiguation page. So when someone searched for "AR-15" they found the Colt AR-15 page then assumed the removal of general AR-15 material was only due to trying to keep the material off Wikipedia vs just keeping the article focused. That would have been easier to deal with if the generic page had been created properly (note: I'm really vague on this part of the history). I recall debates about what to call the page. At some point it appears that Modern Sporting Rifles was picked or morphed into the generic page. I have an issue with that since, as I understand it, not AR-15s can be MSRs. I also see why people who wanted to put some thing about a crime wouldn't think to search for that page and AR-15 didn't redirect there. So that I what I see as the setup that caused most of the issues The Verge reported. The biggest issue was that when the AR-15 page went non-generic, the creation of the generic page and setting up of disambiguations wasn't done correctly/at all. I'm not sure if this was a deliberate effort to keep this material out of any article or more likely just people weren't worried about creating the generic page so it was never really done. As it relates to the Verge, well, that author made it sound like this was a planned or controlled thing vs just the sort of outcome that inevitable given the circumstances. Another issue with The Verge is conflating the removal of a given passage as refusal to allow any such material in the article. A number of the passages I've removed over the last 1.5 years were edits made by the many socks of HughD. Even the material we ended up adding to the AR-15 style rifle page started off as a HughD sock addition. When the reporter would see a single passage from the NRA article get removed he didn't distinguish between not wanting the general material included vs not wanting the specific text. As an example, I haven't been happy with the racism and NRA material but I was having trouble expressing why (beyond feeling that the facts didn't fit the conclusion drawn in the citations). I think this recent edit nailed my issue really well [ [5]]. I've had this issue with other articles where material that is, if you will a subjective conclusion, is presented as an established fact. That was one of the issues I had during a protracted edit war at the Ford Pinto article. It took a lot of effort to craft what I thought was a honest telling of events based on RSed material given all the inflammatory articles that can be quoted talking about Ford's heartless Pinto choices. Sorry, off subject :D Anyway, the Verge assumed a motivation without considering that material is sometimes removed for reasons other than suppression. I don't have much to say about The Week (and you are likely board to death at this point) other than first, the author didn't consider that simple suppression isn't the only reason to remove material. Second, given how quickly a single removal made it to a news story, I have trouble believing that was just a reporter who happened across the story. OK, sorry for the vomit of text. Hope your having a good day! Springee ( talk) 01:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
An apologyOver the past couple of weeks, you and I have butted heads a number of times. I'd like to apologize for my part in those exchanges. I let my responses get more personal and more heated than they should have been. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Your request for arbitration enforcement
Russian interference & election outcome. Trump vs. Clapper
Further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails)
Find more sources: References
About PRESERVE...WP:PRESERVE means we try to respect good faith additions and improve, rather than delete, them. It's a very fundamental policy tied to the very goals of Wikipedia (create more content, rather than make the encyclopedia smaller). As long as certain basic policies are not violated (mentioned there), we should do just about everything possible to preserve content, rather than delete it. If such attempts fail, then it should be moved (not deleted) to the talk page for further work. Deletion is a last ditch action for good faith additions. There is no requirement that additions must be complete and perfect. We are all supposed to improve them. Sometimes that means moving the content to the talk page for work. That's fine. Editors should be treated respectfully and not discouraged by the careless trashing of their good faith efforts. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC) My approach to creating an article or article contentFrom this:
Trump exemptionPractice on the Trump article and talk page shows a clear use of the Wikipedia:Trump exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by this edit, which is a redirect to WP:IAR. It was a clear admission that, when dealing with Trump, it was allowable to ignore all PAG. Censorship is allowed in service of his thin skin. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia:Trump exemption listed at Redirects for discussion![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Trump exemption. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Trump exemption redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG talk 08:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Calibers and lethalityAs far as calibers and lethality, there is some information about two mass shootings:
This caliber is not suitable for hunting as it destroys too much meat, with fragments scattering throughout the animal. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 01:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Significant and notable exceptionThis removed a significant and notable exception. No RS made note of Trump's failure to give derogatory nicknames to many other world leaders because there was nothing unusual about it, but RS did note his failure to do so for Putin, largely because of his suspicious support for Putin, an enemy of democracy and free elections who is attacking democracy and America, and Trump's failures to condemn or do anything to stop those attacks, since Trump is the one who benefits from those attacks:
Maybe we need to give the context. Find quotes in sources. AR-15You know, the last time I approached you about on your talk page about article talk page issues, we were able to come to an amicable resolution and put the matter to rest, so I'll try it again. I am only interested in adding some content about the legitimate use of that rifle, so if you could stop coming at me as if I'm trying to somehow reduce or even remove any criminal use content, I'm sure many would appreciate it. All this back-and-forth is accomplishing nothing, it's just becoming increasingly longer and distracting pagefill. Thanks - theWOLFchild 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
NullThe sourcing is irrelevant: the problem is that an encyclopedia doesn't care about one publication's opinion. I could bring in tons of factual statements of "Source X says Y about person/entity/topic Z", and they'd all be sufficiently sourced, but they wouldn't generally belong because they're other entities' opinions. Preserving inappropriate content is wrong; in this situation, improvement consists of trashing, not preserving or modifying. Nyttend ( talk) 00:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 1RR at Trump–Russia dossierJust a heads up the article is under 1RR. Here is the DS template for that page, Template:Editnotices/Page/Trump–Russia dossier Might want to self-revert. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop hounding me.Your was disruptive, especially knowing I would not be responding on that user's TP again. I am not going to discuss your obvious biases and POV, or your lack of understanding about WP:NPOV, or how your choices of RS and cherrypicked information from those sources is noncompliant with NPOV. I am done explaining to you - my patience has worn thin, and I hope you can see that what you're doing is highly disruptive. Please stop hounding me - go about your business and leave me alone. Thank you. Atsme 📞 📧 01:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Reverting ArticlesI hope this is the right place to talk with you. Feel free to delete it if it is not. Thank you for reverting the edits I did, not knowing how the bot worked based on the documentation I could find. I will definitely NOT be using it in the future and will focus on editing by hand as I have in the past with significantly more success. This was my first time using it and it will be the last as it is way too dangerous. Having several people let me know what I did wrong, it is now understood. I am sorry for the damage I caused. But your words came across very violently unlike the others. It may not have been your intent but this is how it came across. I can see your passion for this project and appreciate it. Just realize that there is another human being on the other side who is far from perfect. Scaring people off with violent and threatening words is counter-productive in my opinion. It is my understanding that perfection is not necessary to participate in this project. I will focus on what I seem to be doing well (local history articles, etc.) and leave the rest to others. All the best. Blazing Liberty 14:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
"Survivor"Every student at MSD High School who didn't die in the shooting is being referred to as a survivor. Kashuv, specifically (just as the others who have been highlighted in media) is being referred to as a survivor by reliable source after reliable source. We go by WP:RS here, therefore, he is a survivor. Remember, verifiability over truth. Please revert your edit at the Kashuv article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please don't directly edit the Wikipedia:Good article nominations pageBullRangifer, I noticed you were making edits directly on the WP:GAN page. Please don't. The page is created by a bot, and it gets updated every 20 minutes based on the information it finds on article talk pages, including Talk:Trump–Russia dossier—in particular, the GA nominee templates. All of the edits you made have been undone by the bot, which rebuilt the nomination's entry. For future reference, if you want to add a note about a co-nominator or the like, the way to do it is to add the text to the GA nominee template on the article's talk page; just type in what you want after the "|note=" field in the template. The bot will pick up on it, and add it to the nomination entry on the WP:GAN page. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Dossier imagesNow we just need images for Christopher Steele, Glenn R. Simpson, and a better image of Paul Manafort. ![]() ![]() ![]() [[:File:2015_RT_gala_dinner_in_Moscow,_general_Flynn_next_to_President_Putin.jpg|thumb|upright=1.15|right| Vladimir Putin, Michael Flynn and Jill Stein (2015)]] ![]() ![]() Paul EricksonHi there. Since you reviewed Paul Erickson and performed some light edits there, would you be willing to weigh in on the ongoing disputes at Talk:Paul Erickson (activist)? We could really use a 3rd opinion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Editing environment
@ BullRangifer: I think you should think long and hard about whether your ability to read and write objectively has been badly compromised by your strong political views. You have got to be able to discuss views about maybe Trump didn't collude without insulting the editor or wrongly accusing them of reading propaganda sources. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Factchecker_atyourservice, let's get one thing straight, I did not "delete" your comments; I "archived" them. There is a difference, so get your terminology straight. I did not single them out for archiving either. That talk page was HUGE and unwieldy, so I looked at the dates for the last comments and then started archiving all threads which were stale, inactive, or unlikely to get anymore comments. Yours fell in all three categories, most likely because they were so huge and convoluted that no one wanted to touch them anymore. You had been warned and advised by several editors to keep it short and simple. If anything was still a concern, you could start a new thread. BTW, even though your comments were unwieldy, and you may think I ignored them, I didn't. I read them carefully and did make some changes to accommodate some concerns which had some legitimacy. It was just difficult to do. In the future, stick to one single issue and keep it very short. Also don't write aggressively and offensively, because that clearly implies you are not AGF. That turns people off. More sugar and less vinegar. To really achieve progress, provide actual wordings and sourcing for suggested improvements. That is something we can work with. If you watch my interactions with User:Politrukki, you'll see that, even though we differ in POV and don't always agree, we collaborate and get things done. I'm far from perfect and have my blind spots, and Politrukki is a good foil to help me improve. I really appreciate that. Many of their suggestions and concerns have resulted in improvements, largely because their approach is more positive and they AGF. It may not be as much as they want, but it's still worth something. Look at that picture at the top of this page and read it. I really believe that. I have always tried to live by that, and sometimes I have failed, so I really welcome opportunities to work with editors on the "other side of the table" who are willing to work with me. It's a give and take situation, and Politrukki can attest that I'm not very hard to work with. I don't give out barnstars very often, but they got one. (I need to do it more.) I admit my errors once I'm convinced, and am willing to change content I have installed when imperfections are pointed out. AGF is essential. Try it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Opinion on talk pagesHi, BR. Factchecker went about it wrong, but he had a valid point. That whole "Why didn’t Clinton use it?" section was OR and I have hatted it. I also extended the hat over an additional portion of your "Gobbledygook" rant, about the Trumpies being surprised when Putin went beyond what they thought was his mandate. We are all entitled to our opinions, but please try not to FORUM on the article talk page. Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I really tried to work with Factchecker. But it's like pulling teeth to get anything specific out of him - it's all generalities. And when I finally got a suggestion of one specific thing to look at, and my response was everything he could have desired, his reaction was totally negative. Just general complaints (personal this time) and refusals to name any additional specifics we can talk about. I'm done trying to work with him. And somebody else is going to have to deal with his walls of FORUM-spouting. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Factchecker atyourserviceNote -- NeilN talk to me 04:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The squirrelThe squirrel is mother to many nuts. Trump seems to be the squirrel, at least around this website these days. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this, if you delete this section they're complaining about then they won't have a leg to stand on if they direct a personal snipe at you again (assuming you keep away from them, too). SPECIFICO should know better than to fan the flames. Resist the temptation. -- NeilN talk to me 02:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec)... NeilN, thanks for clearing that up. It really is THIS thread you're talking about. Okay, will do, but I must make a few things clear:
So after writing this, I'll archive the section, and I know you'll read it in the history. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Not Waybacking?You removed https://web.archive.org/web/20180413230951/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html from a citation, stating "Let's not adopt the disputed practice of bloating with archiveURL while still live". I was not aware that this was a disputed practice, it simply seems like good form to archive content that may be removed or redirected. Could you kindly let me know where I can read about this dispute, and what the consensus is on archiving content? PvOberstein ( talk) 12:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
False and misleading statementsAs president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. [1] [2] [3] [4] Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, [1] and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. [5] The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." [6] Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." [7] Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true." [8] Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. [9] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously. [9] Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. [10] [11] [12] [13] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, [14] [15] [16] Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented " alternative facts". [17] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." [18] Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." [19] She compared the research on lying with his falsehoods, finding that his differ from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many "self-serving lies" as "kind lies", whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's falsehoods are "cruel lies", while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's falsehoods are "kind lies", while it's 25% for others. His falsehoods often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful". [20] Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He tells falsehoods about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning. [21] In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency." [22] David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. [23] [24] Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. [25] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. [26] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving [27] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." [28] In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada. [29] Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; [30] [31] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; [32] [33] [34] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; [35] [36] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". [37] [38] [39]
Fact checkers
Michael Cohen...Source list, with refsFeel free to add more sources to the bottom and I'll format the references. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Prague[Wow, what an edit notice...] Re Prague, I'm thinking it's a bit too soon. Cohen is adamant that he's not been to Prague, and the available evidence seems to support it, barring that Cohen actually has two passports:
I would give it a few days, as it's mostly speculation at this point, as in: it would be big if the McClatchy reports were true. Which it would be. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
An example of how people these rich people (and also criminals) can travel without any record is this example from when Trump traveled to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, the occasion of the alleged pee pee tape.
The flight is registered, but not the passengers. Without public exposure and social media exposure, these people could travel to places and return, without hardly anyone but a few trusted people knowing. This is an interesting article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) DossierThe Cohen material was reverted at the dossier article. To formalize the consensus, I posted a poll. Within minutes, three editors who have never edited the article before showed up to vote, all in the Oppose section. I just thought that was interesting.- Mr X 🖋 17:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Competence is required essay
You're more experienced than I, so I thought you might be interested in taking a look at these edits [6]. It's long seemed to me that this essay, while dealing with an important issue, has never presented operational tests or standards that are real-life useful rather than provoking hurt feelings and mutual insults. On the other hand, this edit seems to me to have gone too far in removing context and background for the bare examples. Any thoughts? It would be good if this essay were developed into something that could be applied to editor behavior with clear tests and standards. This would not be an easy task, but on the other hand it would lessen the stupid "IDHT" accusations from CIR editors who can't understand why their views have never been accepted. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an area where topic bans are very handy. Some editors are very competent in some areas, and not in others. Some are excellent at gnomish editing and can really improve formatting, grammar, spelling, and such things, but they never get the hang of vetting sources, so they should be topic banned from their favorite articles where they cause disruption. It might be pseudoscience, alternative medicine, or politics. An editor who repeatedly fails to understand that sources like Natural News, Breitbart, and Daily Caller are not RS is incompetent. We may think that what a person believes in real life is none of our concern, but if they continue to use those sources in real life, they will continue to use muddled thinking, and it often spills over into their editing and talk page discussions because they refuse to accept and believe what RS say. When that happens, a topic ban allows them to improve the encyclopedia on other subjects. Since most of their disruption is often on talk pages, a topic ban keeps them from muddling things and being a time sink. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 22 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||
Problematic misuse of two refs
These refs are only used in the lead, and have been co-opted for conclusions in the future. That's wrong, as they can only be used for when they were said. They also need attribution and use in the body of the article. As of February 2018 [update], the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated. References
Deserves response...creation process of ListA comment in a "merge" RfC deserves some response, but obviously not in the RfC, since it's off-topic (it's not an AfD):
I'll likely respond in a separate section when I have more time. I have always been upfront about the creation process for the article, and have explained how and why I chose the 42 (originally many more) RS used. The references exist to document the existence and wording of the allegations. Period. They are not chosen for their POV on the subject. Some were originally chosen because they "also" had interesting commentary, but those comments are now moved to the main article. Any RS can be used to document the "existence" of an allegation, and since some of these allegations are serious (one is "salacious"), BLP's "
WP:PUBLICFIGURE" applies, so they must be documented by multiple RS. If I had chosen to only use the dossier itself, IOW to perform OR, I could have listed far more allegations, but I followed our policies and only listed those allegations which had received attention in multiple RS. That's what we are supposed to do. Since the objection mentions FoxNews as a source, I could also do that. Although their strong GOP bias renders them mostly unusable for accuracy (too much spin and outright proven lies) on the subject of the dossier (for commentary they might still have their place, since bias is not alone a reason to exclude a source), they might still be usable for documenting the existence of some allegations. I'm sure they have done that, but not nearly as much as most other sources, because that would be against their mission, which is to deny and deflect. They don't want their viewers to know that some of the allegations exist. Anything negative about the GOP or Trump is generally buried or ignored. Since the objector thinks the lack of FoxNews refs is a problem, I'll start searching for them. Then I may respond on the talk page. Help in finding those FoxNews sources would be appreciated. Drive-by criticism, especially non-specific, on talk pages, RfCs, and AfDs is unhelpful. People who just criticize, without constructively contributing on talk pages and actually trying to improve articles, are a dime-a-dozen here, and they are disruptive editors. For the purposes of that article they are WP:NOTHERE, and sometimes topic bans should be used to stop their drive-by disruptions. If they don't have something constructive to say or do, then they should stay away. Disagreement can be constructive, but it's often too general to be anything other than irritating bitching. Constructive criticism is different and welcome. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Interesting and misleading comments about creation of allegation list article
This is simply false, and it's even worse because this has been debunked repeatedly and the creation process and reasoning explained in detail. The irony is that above she describes and approves of the very process used. There is no evidence of any SYNTH violation or that there were any "cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative". SMH. The allegations are what they are, and the only ones used were those which were commented on in RS, never any OR or POV choosing. The RS dictated which ones to pick. Their POV is what it is. I have no choice or influence on that.
A coordinated effort to discredit or halt the investigationSaving here: In response to a discussion about the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), specifically about what became this heading ( Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation), Legacypac wrote: "It's all a coordinated effort." How true, and much more than we at first realized. This "coordinated effort" goes way back, with witting and unwitting players working together. The Trump–Russia dossier ties this continuing and coordinated effort back to cooperation established at least eight years before Trump's election, and then alleges the current existence of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin." It furthermore alleges that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership" to defeat "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON", and that there was a "Kremlin campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON". The proof of that collaboration is abundant. Nearly every member of the Trump administration was in repeated contacts with Russians, and repeatedly lied about it. Not only that, they were caught in electronic surveillance talking about it. The micro-targeted election campaign involved a very closely coordinated teamwork involving Jared Kushner, Cambridge Analytica, Facebook's and Twitter's marketing departments, Russian hackers, and WikiLeaks (IOW Russian intelligence), all exploiting a well-developed GOP voter suppression machine which had a track record for successfully guaranteeing Republican victories, even when there were Democratic majorities. The system was nearly foolproof. Respect for democracy was totally gone. The successful election is the fruition of their efforts, and proof of the danger this cooperation poses to democracy and American freedoms. Fortunately they got busted. Now that corrupt system needs to be broken down. Paul Wood, a subject expert, has plainly described this coordinated effort:
The Putin/Trump/GOP/FoxNews/Breitbart/InfoWars/RT/Sputnik coordination/conduit is very active. Note how the ends meet, and how the fake news was directed at InfoWars and Breitbart, and then trickled up, but very little being spread by MSM. Serious news outlets usually reject fake news, but the fringe right-wing (and to a lesser degree the fringe left-wing) has been very open to spreading it. Starting at the extreme fringes, conspiracy theory websites love this stuff. They have no crap filters and believe anything fed to them by Russians, as long as it supports their pro-Trump, anti-Clinton, agenda. InfoWars, WND ( birther central), The Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge are unreliable sources which fall in this class. Moving a tiny bit closer to center, Breitbart News, with its support of James O'Keefe, has actively supported and spread deceptively edited videos which are very misleading, and they have been busted and debunked. Trump is friends with Breitbart's Steve Bannon, InfoWars's Alex Jones, and Fox News's Roger Ailes, and he believes their propaganda. He has no crap filters, and yet he's president. The Russian government has a clear line/conduit of misinformation feeding directly to the president, and it informs his tweets and policies. The top GOP leadership are all corrupted and compromised, because they KNEW (especially the Gang of Eight members) that Russia was interfering in the election and helping the Trump team, but McConnell and Ryan ordered them all to stay quiet, in spite of the active threat. For them, it was more important to get Trump elected than to protect America. They also accepted illegal Russian money for their campaigns, so they are compromised in that way too. Note that some players may be somewhat unwitting, in that they think they are patriots "fighting the good fight" to protect America from an evil (non-existent) "deep state", not realizing they are parroting Putin and serving nefarious Russian interests. This latest phase of collaboration started with the successful attempt, using Russian help, to get Trump elected. According to what Russians have publicly stated, he started to (secretly) plan the election with Russians back in 2013, and they have bragged, on TV, about helping him and about how the Russians elected the American president. In that process a lot MORE kompromat was created, because collusion/conspiracy/secrecy always creates kompromat. It's being used to pressure Trump, IOW a successfully activated blackmail threat, but he willingly plays along because he has no loyalties but to himself. He wanted to win, and wanted this help. With or without kompromat he would have done it. Now that the plot is being uncovered and investigated, the operation has shifted into a defensive obstruction and cover-up effort. They are now fighting for survival and to stay out of jail, and some are already confessing and cutting plea deals. Exciting times! So is the new heading ("Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation") accurate? Yes, but still pretty mild. With time we will be able to write "Attempts to obstruct justice" and an article entitled " Trump-Russia cover-up operation". OK, a few thoughts on the article. You have done a really good job; the introductory paragraphs in particular are well done. The only suggestion I would make in the section headings is to eliminate the separate section “Activated blackmail threat against Trump” and combine it into the preceding section “Kompromat on Trump”. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
So where do we stand on the discussion about merging it into the dossier article vs. keeping it separate? That discussion has pretty much died down; it was started 12 days ago and the last comment was four days ago. It is strongly leaning toward merge - most people seemed to think it would be more useful in the main article than in a separate article - but it is not in “snow” territory. I guess it doesn’t hurt anything to wait for more possible input. I’m not going to close it since I participated in the survey. And of course you shouldn’t either. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
AR-15 articlePlease note you are at 4 reverts. Please self revert the last set of changes since we don't have consensus on the talk page. Springee ( talk) 03:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Gun control discretionary sanctions{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' '''Please carefully read this information:''' The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control|here]]. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact the [[WP:HD|Help desk]] if you have any questions. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User:Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 07:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC) }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->
Copyright vs. Fair UseFWIW, I wholly agree with your analysis on the Andrew McCabe talk page: "I think a major part of the problem is an extreme interpretation of copyright violation taken in isolation from "fair use", which is very elastic. The two must be interpreted in relation to each other, and we should follow the same practices as major newspapers and magazines." and "With more important matters (and more important people and sources), longer exact quotes are justified, sometimes entire paragraphs. That's how fair use works in the real world, i.e. major newspapers and magazines. We should follow their practices." Without a broad interpretation of fair use, modern journalism could not function, analysis of major, complex issues would be nigh impossible, large numbers of journalists would be out of work, and the vast bulk of WP content would need to be taken down. Copyright is enforced primarily to prevent people from profiting from the work of others, but WP has no profit motive, and hence most publishers would actually prefer that WP cite their work, as it drives traffic to their for-profit sites. Cheers soibangla ( talk) 19:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Revision deletionHi BullRangifer. If you have some particular article histories you want me to look at and re-assess, please let me know and I will do so. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 20:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Clarification. Let it die.Can you be more specific on which arguments, with quotes and diffs, you meant in
Special:Diff/828548968 when you said
I'm a bit surprised....and disappointed....that this issue, which was brought to my talk page, has blossomed into a little fire. A small ember which I deliberately let die (I thought), was actually picked up, blown on to keep it alive, brought here, blown up, and now is being blown on a whole lot more. I really don't want this. Let it die. No one has a right to force me to fight when I don't want to. If anything more serious were to happen, I'm fully capable of using dispute resolution processes, notice boards, and escalating things, but I'd rather de-escalate this type of thing. Unfortunately that's not what's happened here. We all have our POV. That's fine by me. I believe in democracy, and a healthy democracy MUST have opposing POV. They must not be suppressed and the opposition eliminated. As you may have noticed in the box at the top, I think it's a strength when editors who hold opposing POV can "sit down" on the talk page and civilly develop content. Editors have POV. That's good. POV warriors don't respect that and stop there. They not only push their own POV, they seek to prevent other POV from being documented. That's harmful. I have often defended content I didn't agree with because it was properly sourced. I'd like to see more of this. Let's all seek to " write for the opponent" when necessary. Can we agree on that? Now you know my thoughts on this, and I don't see an escalation as anything good, so I'm going to hat this. You're welcome to email me if you like. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 03:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Talk:AR-15 style rifleAt 2018-03-06T08:02:56, in the page
history, you made an edit, with the added summary: "
A cool scriptJust came by to see if you had the GoldenRing "generate diff" script. I love it because it allows you to see a diff inlne without leaving the page. There's just one caveat - if you're using an iPad and you've been granted the "rollback" feature, the "see diff" feature sits just above it so if you have fat fingers, you're liable to click the wrong feature (apologies). Atsme 📞 📧 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC) ![]()
About hattingJust to comment: yes, the hatting intimidates me. Yes, it would intimidate anyone. If you want people's comments, leave the discussion open to view. Once it is hatted, the table of contents doesn't even work - and a warning at the top of each thread says the discussion is closed and shouldn't be modified. If you are actually finished with something, hat it. Individually, not everything under a double hat. Or archive it as everyone else does. And if you're not finished with it or are seeking input, leave it open. Just my 2 cents. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Trump and fake news
See: Fake news
A 2018 study [1] by researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter has examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. The findings showed that Trump supporters and older Americans (over 60) were far more likely to consume fake news than Clinton supporters. Those most likely to visit fake news websites were the 10% of Americans who consumed the most conservative information. There was a very large difference (800%) in the consumption of fake news stories as related to total news consumption between Trump supporters (6.2%) and Clinton supporters (0.8%). [1] [2] The study also showed that fake pro-Trump and fake pro-Clinton news stories were read by their supporters, but with a significant difference: Trump supporters consumed far more (40%) than Clinton supporters (15%). Facebook was by far the key "gateway" website where these fake stories were spread, and which led people to then go to the fake news websites. Fact checks of fake news were rarely seen by consumers, [1] [2] with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check. [3] Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." [2]
References
How to evaluate vaccine resources
Reliable sources
Unreliable sources
(*) Wikipedia is an excellent place to start a search for information, but never quote it. Instead, use their vetted sources. Note that the reliability of the source is directly connected with its intended use in the relevant article. A deceptive and unreliable source can be used to document unreliable claims, while reliable sources will be used to document reliable claims and facts.
AEIt's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that Dennis was referring to: "SUMMARY: The article should have a better section on the use of the AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings, and some editors are blocking that strongly enough that I quickly abandoned the thought of trying. That's my concern." -- NeilN talk to me 04:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Guns and crimeLike you, I was surprised to see experienced editors having serious discussions about whether or not mass shootings belong in firearms articles. Part of the problem is a long-standing I opened an RfC at Village Pump to get more eyes on the subject. I'm not asking you to participate, but reading the responses might give you a better idea of the situation at Arbcom. – dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
StormyRegarding this: None of the sources say that Trump denied the affair, as far as I can tell. Hasn't he been silent on the matter?- Mr X 🖋 12:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia gun nuts in the newsWikipedia has been getting some embarrassing coverage because of the gross policy violations of a real cabal of pro-gun Wikipedia editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms who edit gun-related articles. Newsweek discusses how this "group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors tried to hide the true number of mass shootings associated with the AR-15 rifle," and certain editors are named and/or quoted: Their stonewalling serves to protect the National Rifle Association and AR-15 style rifles by erecting a wall between them and Mass shootings in the United States. Their efforts have succeeded so well at keeping the subjects separated that the media has noticed. There is extensive wikilawyering and gaming the sytem going on. It's persistent, extremely aggressive and personal, and violates policies. Refusal to allow mention of mass shootings using the AR-15 in the AR-15 style rifle and Mass shootings in the United States articles has been obvious. The very existence of that lack proves there is a serious problem and requires no further evidence or diffs. Only recently (March 16) has it been grudgingly allowed in the Mass shootings and AR-15 style rifle articles after considerable pressure, warnings, and threats of topic bans from some courageous administrators. That should not have been necessary. Springee has been part of a collaborative effort to include proper material, so they should, in all fairness, get credit for that. Here are some of those articles:
References
Comparison of versions about AR-15s and mass murdersSize calculation 9,233 8,832 + 43 = 8,875 -47 (actually 43 for deleted headings) 9,233 - 8,875 = 358 was actually removed in one way or other Version of section when I added material (+9,233):
Version of section when Springee condensed the section (+8,832):
RevertedHi BR, I noticed this revert. The contrib was from a WikiEd student participant, who seems to be at least trying to do things well. It seems to me that AGF calls for a bit more than an edit comment in such cases, perhaps a quick note to the contrib's talkpage? In this case Ian seems to have covered that off, so no worries. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 16:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Mentioned in mediaBullRangifer, I wanted to let you know about an ANI question I posted that is related to your posts [ "mentioned_by_media"_section_of_a_talk_page?]. I didn't name you in the question because I don't want this to be about you so much as just helping me understand what is OK and not OK when posting and talking about external media coverage. I've thought about mentioning this to you several times because I think posts like this one [ [3]] are very antagonistic. I've mentioned, indirectly, that the content of the Verge article is not factually correct (the other articles are simply parrots of the Verge). I don't expect any retractions from the media (though I found it gratifying that a number of comments on the Verge article found the article questionable). What I think is improper is to repeatedly post the article in a way that suggests a moral high ground in what is a content dispute. Posting articles that essentially slander editors here is can't be seen as creating a more cooperative editing environment. That's how I read it and I hope you will consider that even if we don't agree on content we (and the other involved editors) are making good faith efforts to improve these articles. Springee ( talk) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
So I have a bit of time and thought I would share my take on the four articles you posted (thanks BTW for the recent edits to the summaries). I basically see the News Week, and Haaretez as repeating the claims of The Verge. The Week was of course its own thing. Anyway, The Verge's author did ask me for a quote but just 24 hours before. His question was vague (other than making the tone of the article clear). I decided not to reply and I don't think a well thought out reply would have mattered. I think there were two things the author got really wrong. First, the sequence of events related to the AR-15 pages. As I recall and based on my limited exposure to the article prior to this year, there were kind of two debates going on. The first was the scope of the article. The Colt AR-15 article, as I gather, started as the general AR-15 page. My early involvement was around the time there was a big debate about what the scope of the AR-15 page should be. Some editors felt that, since AR-15 was a trademarked name it should only be about the "Colt AR-15". So the people who were trying to keep general AR-15 material (primarily crime material) out were doing so based on keeping the article on topic (thus not a PAG violation). As I gathered, the outcome of this debate was to change what was the AR-15 article to the Colt AR-15 article and then start a second article that was the generic page. Of course that didn't go smoothly. First, until recently, the AR-15 search term went to the Colt article vs a disambiguation page. So when someone searched for "AR-15" they found the Colt AR-15 page then assumed the removal of general AR-15 material was only due to trying to keep the material off Wikipedia vs just keeping the article focused. That would have been easier to deal with if the generic page had been created properly (note: I'm really vague on this part of the history). I recall debates about what to call the page. At some point it appears that Modern Sporting Rifles was picked or morphed into the generic page. I have an issue with that since, as I understand it, not AR-15s can be MSRs. I also see why people who wanted to put some thing about a crime wouldn't think to search for that page and AR-15 didn't redirect there. So that I what I see as the setup that caused most of the issues The Verge reported. The biggest issue was that when the AR-15 page went non-generic, the creation of the generic page and setting up of disambiguations wasn't done correctly/at all. I'm not sure if this was a deliberate effort to keep this material out of any article or more likely just people weren't worried about creating the generic page so it was never really done. As it relates to the Verge, well, that author made it sound like this was a planned or controlled thing vs just the sort of outcome that inevitable given the circumstances. Another issue with The Verge is conflating the removal of a given passage as refusal to allow any such material in the article. A number of the passages I've removed over the last 1.5 years were edits made by the many socks of HughD. Even the material we ended up adding to the AR-15 style rifle page started off as a HughD sock addition. When the reporter would see a single passage from the NRA article get removed he didn't distinguish between not wanting the general material included vs not wanting the specific text. As an example, I haven't been happy with the racism and NRA material but I was having trouble expressing why (beyond feeling that the facts didn't fit the conclusion drawn in the citations). I think this recent edit nailed my issue really well [ [5]]. I've had this issue with other articles where material that is, if you will a subjective conclusion, is presented as an established fact. That was one of the issues I had during a protracted edit war at the Ford Pinto article. It took a lot of effort to craft what I thought was a honest telling of events based on RSed material given all the inflammatory articles that can be quoted talking about Ford's heartless Pinto choices. Sorry, off subject :D Anyway, the Verge assumed a motivation without considering that material is sometimes removed for reasons other than suppression. I don't have much to say about The Week (and you are likely board to death at this point) other than first, the author didn't consider that simple suppression isn't the only reason to remove material. Second, given how quickly a single removal made it to a news story, I have trouble believing that was just a reporter who happened across the story. OK, sorry for the vomit of text. Hope your having a good day! Springee ( talk) 01:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
An apologyOver the past couple of weeks, you and I have butted heads a number of times. I'd like to apologize for my part in those exchanges. I let my responses get more personal and more heated than they should have been. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Your request for arbitration enforcement
Russian interference & election outcome. Trump vs. Clapper
Further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails)
Find more sources: References
About PRESERVE...WP:PRESERVE means we try to respect good faith additions and improve, rather than delete, them. It's a very fundamental policy tied to the very goals of Wikipedia (create more content, rather than make the encyclopedia smaller). As long as certain basic policies are not violated (mentioned there), we should do just about everything possible to preserve content, rather than delete it. If such attempts fail, then it should be moved (not deleted) to the talk page for further work. Deletion is a last ditch action for good faith additions. There is no requirement that additions must be complete and perfect. We are all supposed to improve them. Sometimes that means moving the content to the talk page for work. That's fine. Editors should be treated respectfully and not discouraged by the careless trashing of their good faith efforts. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC) My approach to creating an article or article contentFrom this:
Trump exemptionPractice on the Trump article and talk page shows a clear use of the Wikipedia:Trump exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by this edit, which is a redirect to WP:IAR. It was a clear admission that, when dealing with Trump, it was allowable to ignore all PAG. Censorship is allowed in service of his thin skin. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia:Trump exemption listed at Redirects for discussion![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Trump exemption. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Trump exemption redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG talk 08:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Calibers and lethalityAs far as calibers and lethality, there is some information about two mass shootings:
This caliber is not suitable for hunting as it destroys too much meat, with fragments scattering throughout the animal. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 01:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Significant and notable exceptionThis removed a significant and notable exception. No RS made note of Trump's failure to give derogatory nicknames to many other world leaders because there was nothing unusual about it, but RS did note his failure to do so for Putin, largely because of his suspicious support for Putin, an enemy of democracy and free elections who is attacking democracy and America, and Trump's failures to condemn or do anything to stop those attacks, since Trump is the one who benefits from those attacks:
Maybe we need to give the context. Find quotes in sources. AR-15You know, the last time I approached you about on your talk page about article talk page issues, we were able to come to an amicable resolution and put the matter to rest, so I'll try it again. I am only interested in adding some content about the legitimate use of that rifle, so if you could stop coming at me as if I'm trying to somehow reduce or even remove any criminal use content, I'm sure many would appreciate it. All this back-and-forth is accomplishing nothing, it's just becoming increasingly longer and distracting pagefill. Thanks - theWOLFchild 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
NullThe sourcing is irrelevant: the problem is that an encyclopedia doesn't care about one publication's opinion. I could bring in tons of factual statements of "Source X says Y about person/entity/topic Z", and they'd all be sufficiently sourced, but they wouldn't generally belong because they're other entities' opinions. Preserving inappropriate content is wrong; in this situation, improvement consists of trashing, not preserving or modifying. Nyttend ( talk) 00:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 1RR at Trump–Russia dossierJust a heads up the article is under 1RR. Here is the DS template for that page, Template:Editnotices/Page/Trump–Russia dossier Might want to self-revert. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop hounding me.Your was disruptive, especially knowing I would not be responding on that user's TP again. I am not going to discuss your obvious biases and POV, or your lack of understanding about WP:NPOV, or how your choices of RS and cherrypicked information from those sources is noncompliant with NPOV. I am done explaining to you - my patience has worn thin, and I hope you can see that what you're doing is highly disruptive. Please stop hounding me - go about your business and leave me alone. Thank you. Atsme 📞 📧 01:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Reverting ArticlesI hope this is the right place to talk with you. Feel free to delete it if it is not. Thank you for reverting the edits I did, not knowing how the bot worked based on the documentation I could find. I will definitely NOT be using it in the future and will focus on editing by hand as I have in the past with significantly more success. This was my first time using it and it will be the last as it is way too dangerous. Having several people let me know what I did wrong, it is now understood. I am sorry for the damage I caused. But your words came across very violently unlike the others. It may not have been your intent but this is how it came across. I can see your passion for this project and appreciate it. Just realize that there is another human being on the other side who is far from perfect. Scaring people off with violent and threatening words is counter-productive in my opinion. It is my understanding that perfection is not necessary to participate in this project. I will focus on what I seem to be doing well (local history articles, etc.) and leave the rest to others. All the best. Blazing Liberty 14:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
"Survivor"Every student at MSD High School who didn't die in the shooting is being referred to as a survivor. Kashuv, specifically (just as the others who have been highlighted in media) is being referred to as a survivor by reliable source after reliable source. We go by WP:RS here, therefore, he is a survivor. Remember, verifiability over truth. Please revert your edit at the Kashuv article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please don't directly edit the Wikipedia:Good article nominations pageBullRangifer, I noticed you were making edits directly on the WP:GAN page. Please don't. The page is created by a bot, and it gets updated every 20 minutes based on the information it finds on article talk pages, including Talk:Trump–Russia dossier—in particular, the GA nominee templates. All of the edits you made have been undone by the bot, which rebuilt the nomination's entry. For future reference, if you want to add a note about a co-nominator or the like, the way to do it is to add the text to the GA nominee template on the article's talk page; just type in what you want after the "|note=" field in the template. The bot will pick up on it, and add it to the nomination entry on the WP:GAN page. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Dossier imagesNow we just need images for Christopher Steele, Glenn R. Simpson, and a better image of Paul Manafort. ![]() ![]() ![]() [[:File:2015_RT_gala_dinner_in_Moscow,_general_Flynn_next_to_President_Putin.jpg|thumb|upright=1.15|right| Vladimir Putin, Michael Flynn and Jill Stein (2015)]] ![]() ![]() Paul EricksonHi there. Since you reviewed Paul Erickson and performed some light edits there, would you be willing to weigh in on the ongoing disputes at Talk:Paul Erickson (activist)? We could really use a 3rd opinion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Editing environment
@ BullRangifer: I think you should think long and hard about whether your ability to read and write objectively has been badly compromised by your strong political views. You have got to be able to discuss views about maybe Trump didn't collude without insulting the editor or wrongly accusing them of reading propaganda sources. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Factchecker_atyourservice, let's get one thing straight, I did not "delete" your comments; I "archived" them. There is a difference, so get your terminology straight. I did not single them out for archiving either. That talk page was HUGE and unwieldy, so I looked at the dates for the last comments and then started archiving all threads which were stale, inactive, or unlikely to get anymore comments. Yours fell in all three categories, most likely because they were so huge and convoluted that no one wanted to touch them anymore. You had been warned and advised by several editors to keep it short and simple. If anything was still a concern, you could start a new thread. BTW, even though your comments were unwieldy, and you may think I ignored them, I didn't. I read them carefully and did make some changes to accommodate some concerns which had some legitimacy. It was just difficult to do. In the future, stick to one single issue and keep it very short. Also don't write aggressively and offensively, because that clearly implies you are not AGF. That turns people off. More sugar and less vinegar. To really achieve progress, provide actual wordings and sourcing for suggested improvements. That is something we can work with. If you watch my interactions with User:Politrukki, you'll see that, even though we differ in POV and don't always agree, we collaborate and get things done. I'm far from perfect and have my blind spots, and Politrukki is a good foil to help me improve. I really appreciate that. Many of their suggestions and concerns have resulted in improvements, largely because their approach is more positive and they AGF. It may not be as much as they want, but it's still worth something. Look at that picture at the top of this page and read it. I really believe that. I have always tried to live by that, and sometimes I have failed, so I really welcome opportunities to work with editors on the "other side of the table" who are willing to work with me. It's a give and take situation, and Politrukki can attest that I'm not very hard to work with. I don't give out barnstars very often, but they got one. (I need to do it more.) I admit my errors once I'm convinced, and am willing to change content I have installed when imperfections are pointed out. AGF is essential. Try it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Opinion on talk pagesHi, BR. Factchecker went about it wrong, but he had a valid point. That whole "Why didn’t Clinton use it?" section was OR and I have hatted it. I also extended the hat over an additional portion of your "Gobbledygook" rant, about the Trumpies being surprised when Putin went beyond what they thought was his mandate. We are all entitled to our opinions, but please try not to FORUM on the article talk page. Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I really tried to work with Factchecker. But it's like pulling teeth to get anything specific out of him - it's all generalities. And when I finally got a suggestion of one specific thing to look at, and my response was everything he could have desired, his reaction was totally negative. Just general complaints (personal this time) and refusals to name any additional specifics we can talk about. I'm done trying to work with him. And somebody else is going to have to deal with his walls of FORUM-spouting. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Factchecker atyourserviceNote -- NeilN talk to me 04:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The squirrelThe squirrel is mother to many nuts. Trump seems to be the squirrel, at least around this website these days. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this, if you delete this section they're complaining about then they won't have a leg to stand on if they direct a personal snipe at you again (assuming you keep away from them, too). SPECIFICO should know better than to fan the flames. Resist the temptation. -- NeilN talk to me 02:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec)... NeilN, thanks for clearing that up. It really is THIS thread you're talking about. Okay, will do, but I must make a few things clear:
So after writing this, I'll archive the section, and I know you'll read it in the history. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Not Waybacking?You removed https://web.archive.org/web/20180413230951/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html from a citation, stating "Let's not adopt the disputed practice of bloating with archiveURL while still live". I was not aware that this was a disputed practice, it simply seems like good form to archive content that may be removed or redirected. Could you kindly let me know where I can read about this dispute, and what the consensus is on archiving content? PvOberstein ( talk) 12:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
False and misleading statementsAs president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. [1] [2] [3] [4] Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, [1] and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. [5] The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." [6] Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." [7] Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true." [8] Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. [9] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously. [9] Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. [10] [11] [12] [13] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, [14] [15] [16] Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented " alternative facts". [17] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." [18] Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." [19] She compared the research on lying with his falsehoods, finding that his differ from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many "self-serving lies" as "kind lies", whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's falsehoods are "cruel lies", while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's falsehoods are "kind lies", while it's 25% for others. His falsehoods often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful". [20] Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He tells falsehoods about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning. [21] In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency." [22] David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. [23] [24] Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. [25] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. [26] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving [27] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." [28] In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada. [29] Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; [30] [31] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; [32] [33] [34] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; [35] [36] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". [37] [38] [39]
Fact checkers
Michael Cohen...Source list, with refsFeel free to add more sources to the bottom and I'll format the references. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Prague[Wow, what an edit notice...] Re Prague, I'm thinking it's a bit too soon. Cohen is adamant that he's not been to Prague, and the available evidence seems to support it, barring that Cohen actually has two passports:
I would give it a few days, as it's mostly speculation at this point, as in: it would be big if the McClatchy reports were true. Which it would be. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
An example of how people these rich people (and also criminals) can travel without any record is this example from when Trump traveled to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, the occasion of the alleged pee pee tape.
The flight is registered, but not the passengers. Without public exposure and social media exposure, these people could travel to places and return, without hardly anyone but a few trusted people knowing. This is an interesting article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) DossierThe Cohen material was reverted at the dossier article. To formalize the consensus, I posted a poll. Within minutes, three editors who have never edited the article before showed up to vote, all in the Oppose section. I just thought that was interesting.- Mr X 🖋 17:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Competence is required essay
You're more experienced than I, so I thought you might be interested in taking a look at these edits [6]. It's long seemed to me that this essay, while dealing with an important issue, has never presented operational tests or standards that are real-life useful rather than provoking hurt feelings and mutual insults. On the other hand, this edit seems to me to have gone too far in removing context and background for the bare examples. Any thoughts? It would be good if this essay were developed into something that could be applied to editor behavior with clear tests and standards. This would not be an easy task, but on the other hand it would lessen the stupid "IDHT" accusations from CIR editors who can't understand why their views have never been accepted. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an area where topic bans are very handy. Some editors are very competent in some areas, and not in others. Some are excellent at gnomish editing and can really improve formatting, grammar, spelling, and such things, but they never get the hang of vetting sources, so they should be topic banned from their favorite articles where they cause disruption. It might be pseudoscience, alternative medicine, or politics. An editor who repeatedly fails to understand that sources like Natural News, Breitbart, and Daily Caller are not RS is incompetent. We may think that what a person believes in real life is none of our concern, but if they continue to use those sources in real life, they will continue to use muddled thinking, and it often spills over into their editing and talk page discussions because they refuse to accept and believe what RS say. When that happens, a topic ban allows them to improve the encyclopedia on other subjects. Since most of their disruption is often on talk pages, a topic ban keeps them from muddling things and being a time sink. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |