This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Basic outline of dossier
...and at Trump-Russia dossier articleI noticed the DS template there doesn't have the Civility section. Too bad, huh? SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
DS change suggestionThese are questions for two admins. NeilN and MelanieN, you both have started me thinking about an occasional problem I've noticed for a very long time. Both NeilN and MelanieN have touched on a subject which could mean we need to improve the DS instructions regarding this wording:
This should only apply to newly-installed content, not to long-standing content. Occasionally individual editors, or groups of editors, game the system(*) by exploiting this to remove (sometimes large amounts of) content on very dubious grounds. This serves their purpose to weaken and destabilize the article, and to remove content they don't like, even if it's not a permanent removal. Deliberate or not, it's disruptive and hinders development and improvement of the article. As NeilN implied, consensus should also apply to removal of long-standing material. That wording should be explicit in the DS notification at the top of talk pages. Here is a suggested wording, obviously subject to improvement:
It is best to use the normal process of article improvement described at PRESERVE, rather than constantly removing large chunks of content. If it's controversial, then work on it on the talk page to avoid edit warring and removal of stable content. The fact that an aspect of the subject may not be covered well, does not justify removing existing content. Instead, make up the lack by adding more content. Often the lack is because good sources are lacking for that POV. This may be a signal that the "missing" part is actually a fringe POV found only in unreliable sources and thus has little weight anyway. (*) If they aren't gaming the system, the result is still the same, and that's what counts, so we should still make a change. What do you think of this? -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
BR, Neil's explanation was unambiguous. Each admin is responsible for their own wording and interpretation. I'd say it's kinda pointless to expect editors to change how admins phrase their DS restrictions. Quite frankly, a bigger concern is determining what is or isn't considered long standing therefore stable, and how admins can logically consider an article that needed DS restrictions in the first place was ever "stable". It's an oxymoron.
Atsme
📞
📧
17:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
BR, I don’t have time to get into this (and in any case I defer to more experienced admins in interpreting the DS). But FYI this was discussed rather extensively at my talk page last year, here and here. You might see if there are any insights or possible wording there for you. I know there have been subsequent discussions at more general boards but I don’t have a link. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Your hatted discussion concerning meThe biggest disruptions are you're own creations, BR. I liken it to Trump tweeting. Just look at how you attempted to malign me here on your TP and at NeilN's TP by casting aspersions, and taking my discussion with MastCell out of context. All anyone has to do is read the full discussion at his TP to see how you deceitfully formulated your ridiculous POV case against me. It's the same pattern of editing I've seen you use in political articles and then try to pass it off as NPOV while accusing others of not understanding NPOV and needing lessons. For the record - I have always enjoyed my discussions with MastCell because he intelligently explains his perspective - I may not always agree with him and vice versa, but I do appreciate our exchanges and consider it productive dissemination - just not in the way you recently pooped all over the last one (and that includes your buttinsky interference and stalking of me which has become quite freaky). Editors whose user pages are as pedantic and polemic as yours have no business accusing others of acting on their biases and not understanding NPOV. Like what Drmies suggested, if you think you have a case against me, then do what you have to do, but stop your goading/lying/misrepresenting/taking my words out of context/casting aspersions and stalking me. Atsme 📞 📧 02:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
"Creepy stalking"? You do realize that "stalking" implies a bad faith interpretation of events and imputes a deliberate and nefarious intent on my part? That's on you. That's bad faith on your part. Both the "creepy" and "stalking" ideas are in your head. There is exactly ONE item on that list which was not already on my watchlist. ONE. That's all. I did notice that you edited an article about lizardfishes, a very interesting subject, and I noticed there was an extra blank line. That's all I fixed. Is that a crime? You seem to think that is a horribly nefarious thing for me to do. That's on you. That's bad faith on your part. It's not stalking. You do realize that around here everything we do is open to scrutiny and easily gets noticed, even when there is no intention to scrutinize. Right now my watchlist says this: "807 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." For me that's a very small watchlist. Not too long ago I had over 10,000 pages on it, so I pared it down. Around here one inevitably runs into all kinds of editors when one has a large watchlist. As far as asking me not to comment on articles where you also comment, well you have no right to do that. It is not stalking when that happens. (BTW, MastCell and I go way, way back to far before you started here. We're both medical professionals and share many POV in science and medicine.) You appear on articles where I'm commenting all the time. So what? The difference between us is that I don't accuse you of stalking me. Grow up. AGF. I have no interest in stalking you. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Trump's dubious relationship to truth and factsThis is a very small portion of what's available on Trump's notorious relationship to truth. There is enough material for a very large article. Every single day provides new material. There are plenty of opinions about the subject, but then there are the facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Lies are easily fact checked, and what fact checkers say should not be confused with opinions. Trump's dubious relationship to truth and factsAs 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 lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying 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 lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies 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 lies 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 checkersHere 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]
Trump, his supporters, and fake newsTrump's supporters are especially affected by his false statements and attacks on the media and reliable sources. The effects of his attacks on truth are boosted by their uniquely high consumption [51] [52] of dubious sources, junk news, and actual fake news. Like him, they have a disdain for reliable sources and seem unable or unwilling to vet sources for reliability. Unfortunately, their reaction to sources and fact checking which reflect poorly on Trump and expose his falsehoods is not to believe them and move away from untruth, but instead to label it "fake news" and move deeper into a closed loop of delusion. Their definition of "fake news" is a novel, Trumpian, [53] interpretation, as it is totally unrelated to the factual accuracy of the source. [54] It is also an especially pernicious interpretation because these exposures of Trump's falsehoods are actually very real news and truth. By contrast to liberals, most of Trump's supporters are conservatives whose media bias limits their news sourcing to a very limited number of unreliable sources. [55] Instead of being enlightened by reliable sources, they believe his falsehoods, considering them "alternative facts". [56] A 2018 study at Oxford University [57] found that Trump's supporters consumed the "largest volume of 'junk news' on Facebook and Twitter":
A 2018 study [51] 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%). [51] [52] 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, [51] [52] with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check. [59] 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." [52] (Bolding added)
ReferencesReferences
Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden
This quote is especially interesting because it's Michael Hayden who quotes Michael Morell and then offers his own preference. Both top intelligence men share secret knowledge about Trump's relationship to Russia. Hayden considers the descriptions rather "harsh", but also "benign" under the circumstances. They know far more than we do and that the reality about Trump is much worse than their descriptions. It's not often one finds such a unique example of contemporary usage of the term "useful fool". If one tried to create an anonymized example of a classic use of the term for use in the Useful idiot article, one could not create a better example than this one. It uses the concept in two different ways; it's coming from two top intelligence officials; and it's about the most notable example in modern times. No wise or informed world leader would allow themselves to get into this situation, but it's happening right now. This is both quotes from their original sources:
Here's a joke about the Trump Tower meeting:
MelanieN, I thought you'd appreciate this. Those men know what they're talking about. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 21:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Some more recent citations, based on his actions as president: Foreign policy; Steve Schmidt quoted at MSNBC; opinion piece at WaPo, quoting Madeline Albright and former FBI agent Clinton Watts. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
BLP about Public figures
A few things to note about this:
Many editors cite BLP, and even WP:PUBLIFIGURE, as if it means that negative and/or unproven information should not be included. No, that's not the way it works. That would be censorship, and that would violate NPOV. Just treat the allegation(s) sensitively, and neutrally document what multiple RS say. Before you study this subject, you MUST see this short BBC video (4:41 min.). Prepare to have your mind blown. This is not a conspiracy theory. At the end of the sources is a search on the subject. Project Alamo was the digital team behind the Trump campaign. Kushner was in charge of digital operations:
Then read this:
They started with bragging at their efficiency, success, and collaboration with Facebook, et al. The Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica (CA), Facebook, Google, and YouTube were working very closely together all along. I was dumbfounded at the time with how open they were about it, and wondered how that could be legal. According to recent sources (below), their tune has changed to denials and a cover-up, but those historical sources show they knew and colluded together, and CA is now under criminal investigation. Both CA and FB are pointing fingers at each other, and this paints a pretty clear picture of damage control and cover-up (using a false "data breach" story). That is the background one must understand before reading sources. Then it all makes sense. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
References
POV forksPoint of view (POV) forksIn contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory. The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably- weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).
We aren't allowed to create, or use, articles as WP:POVFORKs. Relevant content belongs in the relevant articles, and not be banished to "somewhere else, just as long as it's not here". That's the essence of the attitude we want to eliminate, and why we don't allow POV forks. Dossier history split...sandbox
{{quotebox| == History == There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS. The first phase was sponsored by Republicans, and the second phase sponsored by Democrats. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier. [1] [2] [3] [4] === Research sponsored by Republicans === The first phase of research was sponsored by Republicans. In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. [5] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. [3] [6] [7] The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier." [8] [9] === Research sponsored by Democrats produces dossier === The second phase of research was sponsored by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign and produced the Steele dossier. In April 2016, Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice, hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias was the attorney of record for the DNC and Clinton campaign. [10] ... (Rest is totally unchanged.) References
Comey interviewThe full transcript of James Comey's five-hour long interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Only one hour was shown on April 15, 2016:
The 70 must-see lines in James Comey's ABC interview, CNN References
The term Lügenpresse came into use during the 2016 US presidential election cycle under the moniker of fake news, first largely online in reference to inaccurate or false reporting on social media. The term fake news was later used by the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. [1] At October 2016 political rallies in the US, Trump supporters shouted the word at reporters in the "press pen". [2] Trump himself often referred to the assembled press at his rallies as "the most dishonest people" and "unbelievable liars". [3] American alt-right white nationalist Richard Spencer used the term in an NPI meeting in Washington, D.C. after Trump's victory in the election. In 2017, Trump himself labeled news sources such as the "failing" New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, and CNN, as " fake news" and "the enemy of the American people". [4] The term fake news, itself a variation on "Lying Press," has gained particular commonplace usage during the Presidency of Donald Trump.
Trump and his followers have often attacked the press, calling them "corrupt", "outright liars", and "the deceitful dishonest media." [5] During the 2016 presidential campaign, the press at Trump's rallies was ridiculed, and sometimes the old Nazi slur Lügenpresse, German for " lying press", was used to attack them. [6] In 2017, Trump labeled The New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, and CNN as "the fake news media" and "the enemy of the American people." [7] References
This is the "Trump exemption" in practice....followed by an appeal. "Do the right thing"? Forget it here. That is not allowed. Practice on Trump articles and talk pages show a clear use of the Wikipedia:Trump exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by an editor with this comment, which contains 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. It appears that Trumpipedia is part of Wikipedia, with its own rules. Drmies recognizes that a section (in each biography article) on the subject of Obama's and Trump's relationship to truth and facts would be radically different because they have radically different understandings and practice, and that's the picture painted by RS. Whether one agrees with Obama or not, he at least recognizes that truth is important, whereas Trump has never given it the time of day. He is the most extreme example of affluenza. I have researched the subject and it's fascinating. Right now, even a few sentences in a short paragraph in any Trump article is pretty much forbidden. I have enough (over 300 very RS) for a rather long article about Trump, but I know that such an article would never be allowed. His supporters here would successfully game the system through wikilawyering, exploiting the DS requirement for a consensus to restore contested content, RfCs, and AfDs. Such an article would be labeled an "attack page", even though it's only a documentation of what RS say, and that is what's supposed to dictate our content. The "Trump exemption" (endless wikilawyering) has become a policy here, used successfully to violate numerous policies. The consensus among RS is that Trump is a "serial liar" in a class by himself, far beyond anything they've ever encountered before. It's a very well-documented character flaw, not just opinions, and yet the dominant view here is that Trump should be given a much longer rope than anyone else and be protected from what RS say. He has that much power here. That's the way it is, and too many admins support that view. These articles should be monitored by numerous admins who are willing to promptly issue DS warnings and topic bans for such obstruction. An appeal: Are there any editors here who will prove me wrong and just follow policy? -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 18:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Why "well-respected attorneys" are refusing...I have created the following in response to this call for the creation of this type of content by BD2412: "I absolutely agree with that proposition. The paragraph can be fleshed out a bit further to indicate the common reasons which were given for declining representation. It would be nice to find a reliable source saying how unusual it is for top firms and lawyers to decline to represent the President." [1] This subject is especially important because Trump himself has mentioned it in connection with the "Russia case" (this article's subject) and labeled this view a "Fake News narrative". That makes this content directly on-topic here. Naturally many RS have responded to his accusation. I suggest it get its own section, as these attorneys are not part of the Trump team. If there is an interest in shortening my version below, the last quote could be tucked into the reference so it only appears in the references' section, but it's important because it mentions the deeper moral and ethical implications, important aspects of the subject which are often ignored. When considering the many RS which mention this subject, I settled on these legal sources because the lawyers and authors on legal websites are subject experts who tend to have a much more informed and less sensational way of expressing themselves than popular pundits found on TV and popular news sources. That keeps this a serious and sober discussion of the issues. When dealing with such opinions, we could choose to include speculations from non-experts, and our policies do allow that, but I prefer to use expert opinions when possible. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice
I'm not trying to get you in trouble, I'm just really confused. -GDP ⇧ 05:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I dont think an organisation has to be legitimate to be classified as a mental health organisation. It's concerned with mental health, however misguided it is. In the same way we would include proponents of other discredited theories. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe there's something here:
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 17:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC) I think a list compiled by the American Hospital Association doesnt confer legitimacy. The National Register of Health Service Psychologists issues credentials - but I think there are other rival bodies issuing different credentials. My point is that as far as Wikipedia is concerned to classify an organisation is not to legitimise it. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Warning - Inappropriate use of RollbackUsing rollback to revert legitimate edits [4] isn't allowed Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. If you want to keep it don't do that. 199.127.56.120 ( talk) 05:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Jane Mayer editsResponse to BullRangifer: Have you posted a similar message on the pages of users who keep reverting edits on the same page? As you can see, they persist in posting information that is contradicted by the primary source: the Pulitzer organization. No, wait, you yourself are one of those editors! I've asked repeatedly that people take this to the talk page instead of continuing to post the unfounded (and apparently inaccurate) information. 148.75.126.156 ( talk) 03:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
You stalking meTrying to fix all my mistakes? Well, what if I want those mistakes to stick around, ever think about that?? ;) I appreciate it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia Bans Breitbart as Source of Fact
Trump 'dossier' stuck in New York, didn't trigger Russia investigation, sources sayThis has content which should be included in some way:
References
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC) CNN controversiesHello, you reverted my edit to CNN controversy, saying it was not reliable or neutral. Could you please explain how so in the CNN controversy talk page? -- 1.136.107.10 ( talk) 08:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC) VerifiabilityI will take your talk page comment as sufficient at least for not WP:STONEWALLING, but you MUST provide a citation for the sentence you restored after I challenged the verifiability of that line. Pick a reliable source, ANY reliable source, that supports the definition on that line and cite to that. I've used my one revert already today, so I will not violate 1RR to revert you, which means I have no choice but to go to WP:ANI if you don't self-revert or provide a citation. - Obsidi ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. I saw no problem since the two definitions are really very similar, but since the second one, in the body, does have a ref, why not just substitute it, with the ref, so this problem won't arise again? Probably best to wait 24 hours. I won't object. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
mon dieuWhen the time comes, I intend to quote your eloquence.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 14:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon on "Jimmy Wales on bias and NPOV"Saved here: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:
So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards NASA astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Fact-checking Trump
The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact-checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods:
Trump's effect on editorial perceptions of reliable sources.The "Trump effect" isn't just a "reverse Midas touch", alluding to the fact that whatever he touches turns to crap, whoever he associates with gets their reputation and credibility damaged, and themselves become (more) corrupt and compromised. No, it also has another meaning of special relevance to Wikipedia, and that's a serious problem. Trump's war on the media has negatively affected some editors' perceptions of reliable sources and fringe sources. Many editors have lost faith in all the media and don't see the huge difference between sources like ABC News, CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times on one side, and Fox News, a partisan propaganda network, on the other. They think they are all equally biased. Even worse, a subset of Trump supporters completely distrust and demonize mainstream media, which are reliable sources, and place their trust in a limited number of very fringe and unreliable sources, most of which are so unreliable that we don't even allow them as sources here. The Trojan horse in this slippery slope away from reliable sources is Fox News, which they trust, because Fox consistently supports and enables Trump, rarely reports anything negative about him, and parrots one-sided stories from fringe, fake, and Russian sources which defend Trump's and Putin's nearly identical POV and agendas. Wikipedia is complicit in this situation because we refuse to deprecate Fox, even though its unreliability and partisanship is well-documented. Trump has said he attacks the media so people won't believe them when they report negative stories about his (dubious) actions, [1] and we have editors who are incompetent enough to fall for that tactic. They are fringe editors who lack the competency needed to edit and comment on political articles. They should be topic banned.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BullRangifer ( talk • contribs)
Improved versionThe "Trump effect" [1] [2] isn't just a "reverse Midas touch", alluding to the fact that whatever he touches turns to crap, whoever he associates with gets their reputation and credibility damaged, and themselves become (more) corrupt and compromised. No, it also has another meaning of special relevance to Wikipedia, because Trump's war on the media has negatively affected some editors' perceptions of reliable sources and fringe sources, and that is a serious problem. Trump's supporters completely distrust and demonize the mainstream media, and some editors don't see the huge difference between credible sources like ABC News, CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times on one side, and Fox News and Sinclair Broadcast Group, which are partisan propaganda networks, on the other. They may say the media are all equally biased, yet they completely trust a limited number of very fringe and unreliable sources, most of which are so unreliable that we don't even allow them as sources here. The Trojan horse in this slippery slope away from reliable sources is Fox News, which they trust, because Fox consistently supports and enables Trump, rarely reports anything negative about him, and parrots one-sided stories from fringe, fake, and Russian sources which defend Trump's and Putin's nearly identical POV and agendas. Trump's motives for attacking the media are clear. Before a 60 Minutes interview, while Lesley Stahl and her boss were sitting with Trump, he began to attack the press. She then asked him why he kept attacking the press, and she later recalled his answer: "You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you." [3] We actually have editors who are fooled by his tactic. Worse yet, Wikipedia is complicit in this situation because we refuse to deprecate Fox for political subjects, broadly construed, even though its unreliability and partisanship is well-documented. We should send a strong signal to Fox News that Wikipedia will not lend its support to their deceptive reporting, and also a strong signal to Trump-supporting editors that they need to sharpen their crap detection skills. They should know better than to use crappy sources. Those who don't understand this are fringe editors who lack the competency needed to edit and comment on political subjects, and they should be topic banned if they get disruptive. What editors believe is one thing, and we allow plenty of divergence there, but when they start advocating fringe views, without using RS, and start endlessly disrupting articles and discussions, we can't tolerate such disruption for long. That is when we use topic bans. That's all I'm talking about. Editors don't get topic banned for their political POV, or for their personal beliefs. They get topic banned because of disruptive behavior. (Placing a full ref here so it shows up below. [3])
Just stopping by to check inHey, I hope things in the real world are doing better/well these days. Springee ( talk) 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
SynthesisPlease do not restore unsourced synthesis, as you did in this edit. If you think this is true, find a source that verifies it instead of adding your own personal analysis. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
For the record, this is the disputed content:
Let's analyze each part of it:
Every one of those points is true and is (or was) covered in the sources. This was my only edit related to this content. I have no ownership feelings about this article. My only other edits (three) were reversions of vandalism. If I had followed the method described in my essay, I couldn't have written that content better than SizzleMan did. If I had done it, I would probably have used the sources in my summary. That's just my style (and we wouldn't be here). SizzleMan's addition of that very nice introductory summary made that section better. Now the section immediately starts with a jolting tit-for-tat listing from a jumbled mess of sources. The section is poorer without that intro. We're encouraged to use good prose and writing style here. That's what was done, and what you rejected. It's not our fault that you were unfamiliar with the individual aspects told by the sources. We saw the summary as an accurate and faithful description of the sources, and you didn't. All you saw was an unsourced SYNTH violation. We have a difference of opinion that is seemingly based on knowledge or lack of knowledge of the sources. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
HelloI have heard through the grapevine that you have had some personal losses recently. I just want to wish you the best. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Gandydancer, please AGF and spare me the vitriol. I don't need the grief. I've got more than enough for several lifetimes. Right now nothing in life for many thousand people, my family included, is functioning normally, and won't for a very long time, maybe never. We're alive, barely. My memory is totally out of whack, and I was being polite. I finished my comment, and then later realized I hadn't pinged you. If you activated your email, I could explain. I have done so to Cullen328 and Mandruss. They understand. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, BullRangifer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Just learned...I don't know what happened, BR, just that something did - and I hope it has nothing to do with this issue. I stopped by to wish you the best, and I hope that whatever pain and sorrow you're dealing with now will soon pass. Kindest regards... Atsme ✍🏻 📧 20:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
IP edit of SnopesRegarding your remark to the IP editor of the Snopes article, please note that the last edit by that IP has not been reverted. (Maybe the IP's last edit is OK; I'm not sure.) — BarrelProof ( talk) 08:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, but how?![]()
Merry Merry
History and ChargesHi. A thought experiment. You are charged today with 10 felonies. On Monday, you are tried, and convicted of zero felonies. Do details of your charges appear in a BLP? I argue no. On the law side, American prosecutors follow RPC 3.8(f) and other rules, which make them say familiar lines: "These charges are only accusations and the subject is innocent until proven guilty in court." On the WP side, a BLP is a conservative account. A person known for crimes, as this Dutch man is, is only fairly known for crimes he committed. The encyclopedia shouldn't even mention charges that weren't proven. I recently removed 11,000 characters from Suge Knight's BLP of lengthy speculation about how he might have killed Biggie and Tupac. While a wiki is a powerful place for such speculations, none of them belong on Wikipedia. Maybe there's some kind of reach about "Folk tales about involvement in murders" but nope, I don't even think that fits here. Some facts don't go in the encyclopedia. In criminal matters, removing the pre-verdict noise helps history and the reader understand what the person is known for. Mcfnord ( talk) 14:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Editors work hard on good faith mistakes all the time. Amazing how I haven't thrown a single word away on Wikipedia, due to its advanced tracking system. But what belongs in a BLP? I re-read BLP rules and it generally doesn't say what you're saying. Suge Knight, a notorious criminal, is known for many crimes (and some productive deeds). Speculation about who he murdered is outside the scope of BLP, unless perhaps contextualized that these are unsubstantiated claims. Where does Wikipedia allow unsubstantiated claims? And in a BLP? To leave the factual statements about two men related to Death Row murdered is a better outcome than leaving speculation that a BLP murdered them. That's my position, but I'm new. Regrettably, you haven't dissuaded me of much. WP:PRESERVE applies well everywhere except to BLPs. I expect together we'll be examining BLP brass tacks in the near future. Here we are, involved together to reach a consensus. Throughout WP, the details of a legal matter accumulate as they are discovered by the press. Where can I find a non-crowdsourced encyclopedia these days? And how will its coverage of 10 criminal charges resulting 1 conviction be covered? Not like a police procedural play-by-play, I imagine. So there's a typical pattern that requires routine culling after verdicts and plea agreements are established. To some degree, the matters of state, as represented in the Mueller investigation, may be different, but unproven claims simply aren't handled properly without modification by, say, some rogue. You can, roguely, if you wish, review my entire history of changes and roll back every last pattern of unsubstantiated claims removal, if you're that sort of rogue unpersuaded by my appeals to BLP rules. In time I hope we reach consensus about this particularly strict WP policy. Mcfnord ( talk) 18:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC) The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. That's you. Regarding speculation that Knight murdered two men, is the work you reverted written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. This also applies to the unproven accusations you restored about the Dutch man. Call them charges or whatever you like. Mcfnord ( talk) 18:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
We might not agree on how libel and criminal law work today, but at issue is how PUBLICFIGURE works. Also at issue is the neutrality of prosecutor statements themselves, and how they relate to court conclusions. Nine times out of ten, the court's conclusion is the best, most neutral summary of events, so much so that inclusion of unsubstantiated charges post-conviction violate UNDUE. I'm still not decided about non-conviction details (like arrests and charges) of PUBLICFIGUREs, but see many problems with their emphasis as neutral explanations of alleged crimes. I don't think PUBLICFIGURE changes that much for me. Mcfnord ( talk) 01:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC) I'm still not sure if/how the notifier works, but I've written to you here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Alex_van_der_Zwaan This man's not PUBLICFIGURE due to having one sole involvement in public discourse. I'm sure we can agree to collapse his noteworthy facets into the Mueller narrative. Or let's quibble about your preference for listing his criminal charges. We can start there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Joe was charged with Foo.
Joe was charged with Foo, but the court found Joe not guilty of the charge.<citation needed> Charges are clouds you might want in front of your clarity. If you want them, then after conviction, each charge should be challenged, if indeed it feels important to keep. You can go look up whether the charge was substantiated. Until you do that, or someone does that, it's conservative to doubt the claim. This seems like the logical progression of conservative biography. Maurice Clemmons is a subject I want to fold into his singular claim to notability, the 2009 Lakewood shooting. Take a look at the 2009 shooting page, under Accomplices. I've been trying to finish that, but unless the topic is prosecutorial miscondict, it's critical in that mess to find conclusions rather than mistrial after mistrail. Fundamentally, listing charges without immediately connecting to resolutions of those charges (when known) is not conservative. We cover the conclusions, and can't let interstitial claims and views (especially claims of fact untested by trials) get in the way and mislead readers about what history, not the various daily speculations, substantiates. You have written quite a bit, and clearly have developed informed views. At some point you'll return from real life to attend school here with me regarding conservative BLP magic. Accept my Alex van der Zwaan change because it's on the money. That private man, notable for one thing and not deserving of a page, deserves conclusive, rather than speculative and often sensationalist, coverage of his criminal deeds. Prosecutors can be sensationalist, too. Courts, not prosecutors, qualify as NPOV sources in biographies. Mcfnord ( talk) 00:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Start responding to specific concerns. Mcfnord ( talk) 06:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC) It's The TruthRe: [12] Debates about the Truth are debates with no possible resolution except for a count of the number of editors on each side; i.e. a democratic vote. Truth has no basis in Wikipedia policy—for good reason—and by going there you validate a lot of the other extra-policy arguments that occur in these discussions. I just stick to RS and leave the word Truth out of it. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
DossierHi, BR. About that essay-sized edit you were proposing to make to the dossier article (and I admit I didn't read all of it, and probably nobody did; it kind of defines TL/DR): I am willing to see if it can be trimmed down to a usable section in the article. Where do you propose I do that? Not at the talk page, certainly, but someplace where we can both work on it and talk about it. How about putting it in a user space draft under your own name? Might you consider first trying, yourself, to look at it with a critical eye toward trimming it?
As you can see I have been working today on trying to trim some of the bloat from the article, which at 225 kb is much, much bigger than it should be. For comparison the entire Donald Trump article is 386 kb. There is a lot of unnecessary detail, and some redundancy because the same subject is discussed in several places. I'm inclined to continue working on that, a section at a time, and maybe tackle the conspiracy theories material later. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Annual DS alert refresh - American politicsThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Just getting you current! AEThere is a discussion involving you at Arbitration Enforcement-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Do not email meI do not appreciate insulting emails sent to me. Do not do that again. Keep it here onsite.-- MONGO ( talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
For context, here's my email, which included this diff, which won't work in the quotebox:
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 21:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
MONGO, unfortunately(?), being coy isn't part of my nature. Maybe it should be! Seriously, I'm well aware that being tendentious comes in many flavors and shades, some truly serious, others much more subtle, and some that are simply differences of opinion. Like assholes, we all have them, and it's okay to have opinions, as long as we don't violate, or work against, policy.
I truly need your insights on the matter. I'm not in the best position to understand myself. We all need to "see ourselves as others see us," and when someone like you expresses a concern, my first reaction is to take it seriously and ask for more insight. Collaboration here would be great. Please help me. What things about my editing are tendentious? Are they just irritating, or are they against our policies? (I'd like to know about both.) I hope you can enlighten me so I can do something about it to become a better editor and human being. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Nunes' follyAs the story went viral and the popularity of the defendant accounts soared, quickly exceeding followers of Nunes' own account, [1] observers began citing this as a prime example of the Streisand Effect. [2] The public response included a summary by Brad Heath, DC Justice and Investigations Editor for USA Today, who described the suit: "Rep Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is suing Twitter because a fake cow was mean to him on the internet. (He's also suing the fake cow.)" [3] Numerous others mocked Nunes on the internet. [4] Other commentators noted the irony of Nunes having previously co-sponsored the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act, [5] [1] with the Editorial Board of The Washington Post considering the suit "part of a dangerous trend": [6]
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC) References
Creation–evolution controversyPlease see the discussion of the talk page at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy#Missing ref. What you call "summaries" included block cut-and-paste content without attribution. If you are going to restore it again, please use an appropriate edit summary to cover the copied text: Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#How about copying from one Wikipedia article to another?. BiologicalMe ( talk) 21:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
NoticeThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Well, we'll have to disagree on that. My position in this case is based on known history and RS. It's a fact that Ailes chose to side with the Nixon administration (proven and convicted criminals) and made war against The Washington Post, the ones who had uncovered their crimes. I doubt that was accidental, do you? Ailes has always fought the Post, and he has used Fox News in those efforts. This is pretty obvious history, and hardly controversial. Start noticing. Fox and Trump ALWAYS oppose the Post as a source. Trump literally wages war against it. IIRC, he even uses the word "war" about it. You will note that this battle against the Post as a source is carried on here at Wikipedia by editors who side with Trump/GOP/Putin and get their misinformation from Fox "News" and even worse sources. That too is an undeniable fact. Those who fight against the Post, which is considered one of the most reliable news sources in the world, are fighting against our RS policy and thus deserve to be labeled tendentious editors. We don't tolerate such editors well because they are fighting against the basis of all our content, which is RS. Another, rather automatic, side to that story is, when they defend the misinformation pumped out by Fox News, they are also engaged in undermining our RS policy by supporting Fox News when it misinforms us. My modus operandi in such cases is this: To be on the safe side, whenever we find good information on Fox News that's worth including here, we should stop and double check it with more RS. If it's not there, it's not worth including. If it is found in such sources as The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, etc, then use them as the source and don't use Fox News as the source. That's the safest procedure. My priority is to use good sources and avoid bad ones. I hope you share that goal. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 01:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
L'Origine du monde againJust letting you know that L'Origine du monde may need to be watched again. I already knew that the editor was unblocked; the community has agreed to give the editor another chance. As you may remember, the editor would repeatedly spam penis and related articles with urination and urolagnia material, and make other problematic edits. I just reverted this. I don't think it's standard to include "commons category" like that. I also left a recent message on the editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Some questions for Trump supportersI don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:
What's your position on these very well-established facts? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
LOL. Do YOU believe anyone read anything on social media and decided to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? Provide a reliable source that shows evidence of this happening because the concept is truly unfathomable. Batvette ( talk) 05:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
|
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Basic outline of dossier
...and at Trump-Russia dossier articleI noticed the DS template there doesn't have the Civility section. Too bad, huh? SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
DS change suggestionThese are questions for two admins. NeilN and MelanieN, you both have started me thinking about an occasional problem I've noticed for a very long time. Both NeilN and MelanieN have touched on a subject which could mean we need to improve the DS instructions regarding this wording:
This should only apply to newly-installed content, not to long-standing content. Occasionally individual editors, or groups of editors, game the system(*) by exploiting this to remove (sometimes large amounts of) content on very dubious grounds. This serves their purpose to weaken and destabilize the article, and to remove content they don't like, even if it's not a permanent removal. Deliberate or not, it's disruptive and hinders development and improvement of the article. As NeilN implied, consensus should also apply to removal of long-standing material. That wording should be explicit in the DS notification at the top of talk pages. Here is a suggested wording, obviously subject to improvement:
It is best to use the normal process of article improvement described at PRESERVE, rather than constantly removing large chunks of content. If it's controversial, then work on it on the talk page to avoid edit warring and removal of stable content. The fact that an aspect of the subject may not be covered well, does not justify removing existing content. Instead, make up the lack by adding more content. Often the lack is because good sources are lacking for that POV. This may be a signal that the "missing" part is actually a fringe POV found only in unreliable sources and thus has little weight anyway. (*) If they aren't gaming the system, the result is still the same, and that's what counts, so we should still make a change. What do you think of this? -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
BR, Neil's explanation was unambiguous. Each admin is responsible for their own wording and interpretation. I'd say it's kinda pointless to expect editors to change how admins phrase their DS restrictions. Quite frankly, a bigger concern is determining what is or isn't considered long standing therefore stable, and how admins can logically consider an article that needed DS restrictions in the first place was ever "stable". It's an oxymoron.
Atsme
📞
📧
17:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
BR, I don’t have time to get into this (and in any case I defer to more experienced admins in interpreting the DS). But FYI this was discussed rather extensively at my talk page last year, here and here. You might see if there are any insights or possible wording there for you. I know there have been subsequent discussions at more general boards but I don’t have a link. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Your hatted discussion concerning meThe biggest disruptions are you're own creations, BR. I liken it to Trump tweeting. Just look at how you attempted to malign me here on your TP and at NeilN's TP by casting aspersions, and taking my discussion with MastCell out of context. All anyone has to do is read the full discussion at his TP to see how you deceitfully formulated your ridiculous POV case against me. It's the same pattern of editing I've seen you use in political articles and then try to pass it off as NPOV while accusing others of not understanding NPOV and needing lessons. For the record - I have always enjoyed my discussions with MastCell because he intelligently explains his perspective - I may not always agree with him and vice versa, but I do appreciate our exchanges and consider it productive dissemination - just not in the way you recently pooped all over the last one (and that includes your buttinsky interference and stalking of me which has become quite freaky). Editors whose user pages are as pedantic and polemic as yours have no business accusing others of acting on their biases and not understanding NPOV. Like what Drmies suggested, if you think you have a case against me, then do what you have to do, but stop your goading/lying/misrepresenting/taking my words out of context/casting aspersions and stalking me. Atsme 📞 📧 02:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
"Creepy stalking"? You do realize that "stalking" implies a bad faith interpretation of events and imputes a deliberate and nefarious intent on my part? That's on you. That's bad faith on your part. Both the "creepy" and "stalking" ideas are in your head. There is exactly ONE item on that list which was not already on my watchlist. ONE. That's all. I did notice that you edited an article about lizardfishes, a very interesting subject, and I noticed there was an extra blank line. That's all I fixed. Is that a crime? You seem to think that is a horribly nefarious thing for me to do. That's on you. That's bad faith on your part. It's not stalking. You do realize that around here everything we do is open to scrutiny and easily gets noticed, even when there is no intention to scrutinize. Right now my watchlist says this: "807 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." For me that's a very small watchlist. Not too long ago I had over 10,000 pages on it, so I pared it down. Around here one inevitably runs into all kinds of editors when one has a large watchlist. As far as asking me not to comment on articles where you also comment, well you have no right to do that. It is not stalking when that happens. (BTW, MastCell and I go way, way back to far before you started here. We're both medical professionals and share many POV in science and medicine.) You appear on articles where I'm commenting all the time. So what? The difference between us is that I don't accuse you of stalking me. Grow up. AGF. I have no interest in stalking you. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Trump's dubious relationship to truth and factsThis is a very small portion of what's available on Trump's notorious relationship to truth. There is enough material for a very large article. Every single day provides new material. There are plenty of opinions about the subject, but then there are the facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Lies are easily fact checked, and what fact checkers say should not be confused with opinions. Trump's dubious relationship to truth and factsAs 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 lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying 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 lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies 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 lies 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 checkersHere 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]
Trump, his supporters, and fake newsTrump's supporters are especially affected by his false statements and attacks on the media and reliable sources. The effects of his attacks on truth are boosted by their uniquely high consumption [51] [52] of dubious sources, junk news, and actual fake news. Like him, they have a disdain for reliable sources and seem unable or unwilling to vet sources for reliability. Unfortunately, their reaction to sources and fact checking which reflect poorly on Trump and expose his falsehoods is not to believe them and move away from untruth, but instead to label it "fake news" and move deeper into a closed loop of delusion. Their definition of "fake news" is a novel, Trumpian, [53] interpretation, as it is totally unrelated to the factual accuracy of the source. [54] It is also an especially pernicious interpretation because these exposures of Trump's falsehoods are actually very real news and truth. By contrast to liberals, most of Trump's supporters are conservatives whose media bias limits their news sourcing to a very limited number of unreliable sources. [55] Instead of being enlightened by reliable sources, they believe his falsehoods, considering them "alternative facts". [56] A 2018 study at Oxford University [57] found that Trump's supporters consumed the "largest volume of 'junk news' on Facebook and Twitter":
A 2018 study [51] 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%). [51] [52] 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, [51] [52] with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check. [59] 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." [52] (Bolding added)
ReferencesReferences
Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden
This quote is especially interesting because it's Michael Hayden who quotes Michael Morell and then offers his own preference. Both top intelligence men share secret knowledge about Trump's relationship to Russia. Hayden considers the descriptions rather "harsh", but also "benign" under the circumstances. They know far more than we do and that the reality about Trump is much worse than their descriptions. It's not often one finds such a unique example of contemporary usage of the term "useful fool". If one tried to create an anonymized example of a classic use of the term for use in the Useful idiot article, one could not create a better example than this one. It uses the concept in two different ways; it's coming from two top intelligence officials; and it's about the most notable example in modern times. No wise or informed world leader would allow themselves to get into this situation, but it's happening right now. This is both quotes from their original sources:
Here's a joke about the Trump Tower meeting:
MelanieN, I thought you'd appreciate this. Those men know what they're talking about. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 21:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Some more recent citations, based on his actions as president: Foreign policy; Steve Schmidt quoted at MSNBC; opinion piece at WaPo, quoting Madeline Albright and former FBI agent Clinton Watts. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
BLP about Public figures
A few things to note about this:
Many editors cite BLP, and even WP:PUBLIFIGURE, as if it means that negative and/or unproven information should not be included. No, that's not the way it works. That would be censorship, and that would violate NPOV. Just treat the allegation(s) sensitively, and neutrally document what multiple RS say. Before you study this subject, you MUST see this short BBC video (4:41 min.). Prepare to have your mind blown. This is not a conspiracy theory. At the end of the sources is a search on the subject. Project Alamo was the digital team behind the Trump campaign. Kushner was in charge of digital operations:
Then read this:
They started with bragging at their efficiency, success, and collaboration with Facebook, et al. The Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica (CA), Facebook, Google, and YouTube were working very closely together all along. I was dumbfounded at the time with how open they were about it, and wondered how that could be legal. According to recent sources (below), their tune has changed to denials and a cover-up, but those historical sources show they knew and colluded together, and CA is now under criminal investigation. Both CA and FB are pointing fingers at each other, and this paints a pretty clear picture of damage control and cover-up (using a false "data breach" story). That is the background one must understand before reading sources. Then it all makes sense. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
References
POV forksPoint of view (POV) forksIn contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory. The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably- weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).
We aren't allowed to create, or use, articles as WP:POVFORKs. Relevant content belongs in the relevant articles, and not be banished to "somewhere else, just as long as it's not here". That's the essence of the attitude we want to eliminate, and why we don't allow POV forks. Dossier history split...sandbox
{{quotebox| == History == There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS. The first phase was sponsored by Republicans, and the second phase sponsored by Democrats. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier. [1] [2] [3] [4] === Research sponsored by Republicans === The first phase of research was sponsored by Republicans. In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. [5] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. [3] [6] [7] The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier." [8] [9] === Research sponsored by Democrats produces dossier === The second phase of research was sponsored by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign and produced the Steele dossier. In April 2016, Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice, hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias was the attorney of record for the DNC and Clinton campaign. [10] ... (Rest is totally unchanged.) References
Comey interviewThe full transcript of James Comey's five-hour long interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Only one hour was shown on April 15, 2016:
The 70 must-see lines in James Comey's ABC interview, CNN References
The term Lügenpresse came into use during the 2016 US presidential election cycle under the moniker of fake news, first largely online in reference to inaccurate or false reporting on social media. The term fake news was later used by the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. [1] At October 2016 political rallies in the US, Trump supporters shouted the word at reporters in the "press pen". [2] Trump himself often referred to the assembled press at his rallies as "the most dishonest people" and "unbelievable liars". [3] American alt-right white nationalist Richard Spencer used the term in an NPI meeting in Washington, D.C. after Trump's victory in the election. In 2017, Trump himself labeled news sources such as the "failing" New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, and CNN, as " fake news" and "the enemy of the American people". [4] The term fake news, itself a variation on "Lying Press," has gained particular commonplace usage during the Presidency of Donald Trump.
Trump and his followers have often attacked the press, calling them "corrupt", "outright liars", and "the deceitful dishonest media." [5] During the 2016 presidential campaign, the press at Trump's rallies was ridiculed, and sometimes the old Nazi slur Lügenpresse, German for " lying press", was used to attack them. [6] In 2017, Trump labeled The New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, and CNN as "the fake news media" and "the enemy of the American people." [7] References
This is the "Trump exemption" in practice....followed by an appeal. "Do the right thing"? Forget it here. That is not allowed. Practice on Trump articles and talk pages show a clear use of the Wikipedia:Trump exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by an editor with this comment, which contains 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. It appears that Trumpipedia is part of Wikipedia, with its own rules. Drmies recognizes that a section (in each biography article) on the subject of Obama's and Trump's relationship to truth and facts would be radically different because they have radically different understandings and practice, and that's the picture painted by RS. Whether one agrees with Obama or not, he at least recognizes that truth is important, whereas Trump has never given it the time of day. He is the most extreme example of affluenza. I have researched the subject and it's fascinating. Right now, even a few sentences in a short paragraph in any Trump article is pretty much forbidden. I have enough (over 300 very RS) for a rather long article about Trump, but I know that such an article would never be allowed. His supporters here would successfully game the system through wikilawyering, exploiting the DS requirement for a consensus to restore contested content, RfCs, and AfDs. Such an article would be labeled an "attack page", even though it's only a documentation of what RS say, and that is what's supposed to dictate our content. The "Trump exemption" (endless wikilawyering) has become a policy here, used successfully to violate numerous policies. The consensus among RS is that Trump is a "serial liar" in a class by himself, far beyond anything they've ever encountered before. It's a very well-documented character flaw, not just opinions, and yet the dominant view here is that Trump should be given a much longer rope than anyone else and be protected from what RS say. He has that much power here. That's the way it is, and too many admins support that view. These articles should be monitored by numerous admins who are willing to promptly issue DS warnings and topic bans for such obstruction. An appeal: Are there any editors here who will prove me wrong and just follow policy? -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 18:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Why "well-respected attorneys" are refusing...I have created the following in response to this call for the creation of this type of content by BD2412: "I absolutely agree with that proposition. The paragraph can be fleshed out a bit further to indicate the common reasons which were given for declining representation. It would be nice to find a reliable source saying how unusual it is for top firms and lawyers to decline to represent the President." [1] This subject is especially important because Trump himself has mentioned it in connection with the "Russia case" (this article's subject) and labeled this view a "Fake News narrative". That makes this content directly on-topic here. Naturally many RS have responded to his accusation. I suggest it get its own section, as these attorneys are not part of the Trump team. If there is an interest in shortening my version below, the last quote could be tucked into the reference so it only appears in the references' section, but it's important because it mentions the deeper moral and ethical implications, important aspects of the subject which are often ignored. When considering the many RS which mention this subject, I settled on these legal sources because the lawyers and authors on legal websites are subject experts who tend to have a much more informed and less sensational way of expressing themselves than popular pundits found on TV and popular news sources. That keeps this a serious and sober discussion of the issues. When dealing with such opinions, we could choose to include speculations from non-experts, and our policies do allow that, but I prefer to use expert opinions when possible. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice
I'm not trying to get you in trouble, I'm just really confused. -GDP ⇧ 05:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I dont think an organisation has to be legitimate to be classified as a mental health organisation. It's concerned with mental health, however misguided it is. In the same way we would include proponents of other discredited theories. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe there's something here:
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 17:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC) I think a list compiled by the American Hospital Association doesnt confer legitimacy. The National Register of Health Service Psychologists issues credentials - but I think there are other rival bodies issuing different credentials. My point is that as far as Wikipedia is concerned to classify an organisation is not to legitimise it. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Warning - Inappropriate use of RollbackUsing rollback to revert legitimate edits [4] isn't allowed Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. If you want to keep it don't do that. 199.127.56.120 ( talk) 05:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Jane Mayer editsResponse to BullRangifer: Have you posted a similar message on the pages of users who keep reverting edits on the same page? As you can see, they persist in posting information that is contradicted by the primary source: the Pulitzer organization. No, wait, you yourself are one of those editors! I've asked repeatedly that people take this to the talk page instead of continuing to post the unfounded (and apparently inaccurate) information. 148.75.126.156 ( talk) 03:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
You stalking meTrying to fix all my mistakes? Well, what if I want those mistakes to stick around, ever think about that?? ;) I appreciate it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia Bans Breitbart as Source of Fact
Trump 'dossier' stuck in New York, didn't trigger Russia investigation, sources sayThis has content which should be included in some way:
References
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC) CNN controversiesHello, you reverted my edit to CNN controversy, saying it was not reliable or neutral. Could you please explain how so in the CNN controversy talk page? -- 1.136.107.10 ( talk) 08:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC) VerifiabilityI will take your talk page comment as sufficient at least for not WP:STONEWALLING, but you MUST provide a citation for the sentence you restored after I challenged the verifiability of that line. Pick a reliable source, ANY reliable source, that supports the definition on that line and cite to that. I've used my one revert already today, so I will not violate 1RR to revert you, which means I have no choice but to go to WP:ANI if you don't self-revert or provide a citation. - Obsidi ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. I saw no problem since the two definitions are really very similar, but since the second one, in the body, does have a ref, why not just substitute it, with the ref, so this problem won't arise again? Probably best to wait 24 hours. I won't object. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
mon dieuWhen the time comes, I intend to quote your eloquence.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 14:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon on "Jimmy Wales on bias and NPOV"Saved here: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:
So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards NASA astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Fact-checking Trump
The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact-checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods:
Trump's effect on editorial perceptions of reliable sources.The "Trump effect" isn't just a "reverse Midas touch", alluding to the fact that whatever he touches turns to crap, whoever he associates with gets their reputation and credibility damaged, and themselves become (more) corrupt and compromised. No, it also has another meaning of special relevance to Wikipedia, and that's a serious problem. Trump's war on the media has negatively affected some editors' perceptions of reliable sources and fringe sources. Many editors have lost faith in all the media and don't see the huge difference between sources like ABC News, CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times on one side, and Fox News, a partisan propaganda network, on the other. They think they are all equally biased. Even worse, a subset of Trump supporters completely distrust and demonize mainstream media, which are reliable sources, and place their trust in a limited number of very fringe and unreliable sources, most of which are so unreliable that we don't even allow them as sources here. The Trojan horse in this slippery slope away from reliable sources is Fox News, which they trust, because Fox consistently supports and enables Trump, rarely reports anything negative about him, and parrots one-sided stories from fringe, fake, and Russian sources which defend Trump's and Putin's nearly identical POV and agendas. Wikipedia is complicit in this situation because we refuse to deprecate Fox, even though its unreliability and partisanship is well-documented. Trump has said he attacks the media so people won't believe them when they report negative stories about his (dubious) actions, [1] and we have editors who are incompetent enough to fall for that tactic. They are fringe editors who lack the competency needed to edit and comment on political articles. They should be topic banned.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BullRangifer ( talk • contribs)
Improved versionThe "Trump effect" [1] [2] isn't just a "reverse Midas touch", alluding to the fact that whatever he touches turns to crap, whoever he associates with gets their reputation and credibility damaged, and themselves become (more) corrupt and compromised. No, it also has another meaning of special relevance to Wikipedia, because Trump's war on the media has negatively affected some editors' perceptions of reliable sources and fringe sources, and that is a serious problem. Trump's supporters completely distrust and demonize the mainstream media, and some editors don't see the huge difference between credible sources like ABC News, CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times on one side, and Fox News and Sinclair Broadcast Group, which are partisan propaganda networks, on the other. They may say the media are all equally biased, yet they completely trust a limited number of very fringe and unreliable sources, most of which are so unreliable that we don't even allow them as sources here. The Trojan horse in this slippery slope away from reliable sources is Fox News, which they trust, because Fox consistently supports and enables Trump, rarely reports anything negative about him, and parrots one-sided stories from fringe, fake, and Russian sources which defend Trump's and Putin's nearly identical POV and agendas. Trump's motives for attacking the media are clear. Before a 60 Minutes interview, while Lesley Stahl and her boss were sitting with Trump, he began to attack the press. She then asked him why he kept attacking the press, and she later recalled his answer: "You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you." [3] We actually have editors who are fooled by his tactic. Worse yet, Wikipedia is complicit in this situation because we refuse to deprecate Fox for political subjects, broadly construed, even though its unreliability and partisanship is well-documented. We should send a strong signal to Fox News that Wikipedia will not lend its support to their deceptive reporting, and also a strong signal to Trump-supporting editors that they need to sharpen their crap detection skills. They should know better than to use crappy sources. Those who don't understand this are fringe editors who lack the competency needed to edit and comment on political subjects, and they should be topic banned if they get disruptive. What editors believe is one thing, and we allow plenty of divergence there, but when they start advocating fringe views, without using RS, and start endlessly disrupting articles and discussions, we can't tolerate such disruption for long. That is when we use topic bans. That's all I'm talking about. Editors don't get topic banned for their political POV, or for their personal beliefs. They get topic banned because of disruptive behavior. (Placing a full ref here so it shows up below. [3])
Just stopping by to check inHey, I hope things in the real world are doing better/well these days. Springee ( talk) 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
SynthesisPlease do not restore unsourced synthesis, as you did in this edit. If you think this is true, find a source that verifies it instead of adding your own personal analysis. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
For the record, this is the disputed content:
Let's analyze each part of it:
Every one of those points is true and is (or was) covered in the sources. This was my only edit related to this content. I have no ownership feelings about this article. My only other edits (three) were reversions of vandalism. If I had followed the method described in my essay, I couldn't have written that content better than SizzleMan did. If I had done it, I would probably have used the sources in my summary. That's just my style (and we wouldn't be here). SizzleMan's addition of that very nice introductory summary made that section better. Now the section immediately starts with a jolting tit-for-tat listing from a jumbled mess of sources. The section is poorer without that intro. We're encouraged to use good prose and writing style here. That's what was done, and what you rejected. It's not our fault that you were unfamiliar with the individual aspects told by the sources. We saw the summary as an accurate and faithful description of the sources, and you didn't. All you saw was an unsourced SYNTH violation. We have a difference of opinion that is seemingly based on knowledge or lack of knowledge of the sources. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
HelloI have heard through the grapevine that you have had some personal losses recently. I just want to wish you the best. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Gandydancer, please AGF and spare me the vitriol. I don't need the grief. I've got more than enough for several lifetimes. Right now nothing in life for many thousand people, my family included, is functioning normally, and won't for a very long time, maybe never. We're alive, barely. My memory is totally out of whack, and I was being polite. I finished my comment, and then later realized I hadn't pinged you. If you activated your email, I could explain. I have done so to Cullen328 and Mandruss. They understand. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, BullRangifer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Just learned...I don't know what happened, BR, just that something did - and I hope it has nothing to do with this issue. I stopped by to wish you the best, and I hope that whatever pain and sorrow you're dealing with now will soon pass. Kindest regards... Atsme ✍🏻 📧 20:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
IP edit of SnopesRegarding your remark to the IP editor of the Snopes article, please note that the last edit by that IP has not been reverted. (Maybe the IP's last edit is OK; I'm not sure.) — BarrelProof ( talk) 08:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, but how?![]()
Merry Merry
History and ChargesHi. A thought experiment. You are charged today with 10 felonies. On Monday, you are tried, and convicted of zero felonies. Do details of your charges appear in a BLP? I argue no. On the law side, American prosecutors follow RPC 3.8(f) and other rules, which make them say familiar lines: "These charges are only accusations and the subject is innocent until proven guilty in court." On the WP side, a BLP is a conservative account. A person known for crimes, as this Dutch man is, is only fairly known for crimes he committed. The encyclopedia shouldn't even mention charges that weren't proven. I recently removed 11,000 characters from Suge Knight's BLP of lengthy speculation about how he might have killed Biggie and Tupac. While a wiki is a powerful place for such speculations, none of them belong on Wikipedia. Maybe there's some kind of reach about "Folk tales about involvement in murders" but nope, I don't even think that fits here. Some facts don't go in the encyclopedia. In criminal matters, removing the pre-verdict noise helps history and the reader understand what the person is known for. Mcfnord ( talk) 14:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Editors work hard on good faith mistakes all the time. Amazing how I haven't thrown a single word away on Wikipedia, due to its advanced tracking system. But what belongs in a BLP? I re-read BLP rules and it generally doesn't say what you're saying. Suge Knight, a notorious criminal, is known for many crimes (and some productive deeds). Speculation about who he murdered is outside the scope of BLP, unless perhaps contextualized that these are unsubstantiated claims. Where does Wikipedia allow unsubstantiated claims? And in a BLP? To leave the factual statements about two men related to Death Row murdered is a better outcome than leaving speculation that a BLP murdered them. That's my position, but I'm new. Regrettably, you haven't dissuaded me of much. WP:PRESERVE applies well everywhere except to BLPs. I expect together we'll be examining BLP brass tacks in the near future. Here we are, involved together to reach a consensus. Throughout WP, the details of a legal matter accumulate as they are discovered by the press. Where can I find a non-crowdsourced encyclopedia these days? And how will its coverage of 10 criminal charges resulting 1 conviction be covered? Not like a police procedural play-by-play, I imagine. So there's a typical pattern that requires routine culling after verdicts and plea agreements are established. To some degree, the matters of state, as represented in the Mueller investigation, may be different, but unproven claims simply aren't handled properly without modification by, say, some rogue. You can, roguely, if you wish, review my entire history of changes and roll back every last pattern of unsubstantiated claims removal, if you're that sort of rogue unpersuaded by my appeals to BLP rules. In time I hope we reach consensus about this particularly strict WP policy. Mcfnord ( talk) 18:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC) The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. That's you. Regarding speculation that Knight murdered two men, is the work you reverted written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. This also applies to the unproven accusations you restored about the Dutch man. Call them charges or whatever you like. Mcfnord ( talk) 18:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
We might not agree on how libel and criminal law work today, but at issue is how PUBLICFIGURE works. Also at issue is the neutrality of prosecutor statements themselves, and how they relate to court conclusions. Nine times out of ten, the court's conclusion is the best, most neutral summary of events, so much so that inclusion of unsubstantiated charges post-conviction violate UNDUE. I'm still not decided about non-conviction details (like arrests and charges) of PUBLICFIGUREs, but see many problems with their emphasis as neutral explanations of alleged crimes. I don't think PUBLICFIGURE changes that much for me. Mcfnord ( talk) 01:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC) I'm still not sure if/how the notifier works, but I've written to you here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Alex_van_der_Zwaan This man's not PUBLICFIGURE due to having one sole involvement in public discourse. I'm sure we can agree to collapse his noteworthy facets into the Mueller narrative. Or let's quibble about your preference for listing his criminal charges. We can start there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Joe was charged with Foo.
Joe was charged with Foo, but the court found Joe not guilty of the charge.<citation needed> Charges are clouds you might want in front of your clarity. If you want them, then after conviction, each charge should be challenged, if indeed it feels important to keep. You can go look up whether the charge was substantiated. Until you do that, or someone does that, it's conservative to doubt the claim. This seems like the logical progression of conservative biography. Maurice Clemmons is a subject I want to fold into his singular claim to notability, the 2009 Lakewood shooting. Take a look at the 2009 shooting page, under Accomplices. I've been trying to finish that, but unless the topic is prosecutorial miscondict, it's critical in that mess to find conclusions rather than mistrial after mistrail. Fundamentally, listing charges without immediately connecting to resolutions of those charges (when known) is not conservative. We cover the conclusions, and can't let interstitial claims and views (especially claims of fact untested by trials) get in the way and mislead readers about what history, not the various daily speculations, substantiates. You have written quite a bit, and clearly have developed informed views. At some point you'll return from real life to attend school here with me regarding conservative BLP magic. Accept my Alex van der Zwaan change because it's on the money. That private man, notable for one thing and not deserving of a page, deserves conclusive, rather than speculative and often sensationalist, coverage of his criminal deeds. Prosecutors can be sensationalist, too. Courts, not prosecutors, qualify as NPOV sources in biographies. Mcfnord ( talk) 00:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Start responding to specific concerns. Mcfnord ( talk) 06:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC) It's The TruthRe: [12] Debates about the Truth are debates with no possible resolution except for a count of the number of editors on each side; i.e. a democratic vote. Truth has no basis in Wikipedia policy—for good reason—and by going there you validate a lot of the other extra-policy arguments that occur in these discussions. I just stick to RS and leave the word Truth out of it. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
DossierHi, BR. About that essay-sized edit you were proposing to make to the dossier article (and I admit I didn't read all of it, and probably nobody did; it kind of defines TL/DR): I am willing to see if it can be trimmed down to a usable section in the article. Where do you propose I do that? Not at the talk page, certainly, but someplace where we can both work on it and talk about it. How about putting it in a user space draft under your own name? Might you consider first trying, yourself, to look at it with a critical eye toward trimming it?
As you can see I have been working today on trying to trim some of the bloat from the article, which at 225 kb is much, much bigger than it should be. For comparison the entire Donald Trump article is 386 kb. There is a lot of unnecessary detail, and some redundancy because the same subject is discussed in several places. I'm inclined to continue working on that, a section at a time, and maybe tackle the conspiracy theories material later. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Annual DS alert refresh - American politicsThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Just getting you current! AEThere is a discussion involving you at Arbitration Enforcement-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Do not email meI do not appreciate insulting emails sent to me. Do not do that again. Keep it here onsite.-- MONGO ( talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
For context, here's my email, which included this diff, which won't work in the quotebox:
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 21:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
MONGO, unfortunately(?), being coy isn't part of my nature. Maybe it should be! Seriously, I'm well aware that being tendentious comes in many flavors and shades, some truly serious, others much more subtle, and some that are simply differences of opinion. Like assholes, we all have them, and it's okay to have opinions, as long as we don't violate, or work against, policy.
I truly need your insights on the matter. I'm not in the best position to understand myself. We all need to "see ourselves as others see us," and when someone like you expresses a concern, my first reaction is to take it seriously and ask for more insight. Collaboration here would be great. Please help me. What things about my editing are tendentious? Are they just irritating, or are they against our policies? (I'd like to know about both.) I hope you can enlighten me so I can do something about it to become a better editor and human being. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Nunes' follyAs the story went viral and the popularity of the defendant accounts soared, quickly exceeding followers of Nunes' own account, [1] observers began citing this as a prime example of the Streisand Effect. [2] The public response included a summary by Brad Heath, DC Justice and Investigations Editor for USA Today, who described the suit: "Rep Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is suing Twitter because a fake cow was mean to him on the internet. (He's also suing the fake cow.)" [3] Numerous others mocked Nunes on the internet. [4] Other commentators noted the irony of Nunes having previously co-sponsored the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act, [5] [1] with the Editorial Board of The Washington Post considering the suit "part of a dangerous trend": [6]
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC) References
Creation–evolution controversyPlease see the discussion of the talk page at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy#Missing ref. What you call "summaries" included block cut-and-paste content without attribution. If you are going to restore it again, please use an appropriate edit summary to cover the copied text: Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#How about copying from one Wikipedia article to another?. BiologicalMe ( talk) 21:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
NoticeThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Well, we'll have to disagree on that. My position in this case is based on known history and RS. It's a fact that Ailes chose to side with the Nixon administration (proven and convicted criminals) and made war against The Washington Post, the ones who had uncovered their crimes. I doubt that was accidental, do you? Ailes has always fought the Post, and he has used Fox News in those efforts. This is pretty obvious history, and hardly controversial. Start noticing. Fox and Trump ALWAYS oppose the Post as a source. Trump literally wages war against it. IIRC, he even uses the word "war" about it. You will note that this battle against the Post as a source is carried on here at Wikipedia by editors who side with Trump/GOP/Putin and get their misinformation from Fox "News" and even worse sources. That too is an undeniable fact. Those who fight against the Post, which is considered one of the most reliable news sources in the world, are fighting against our RS policy and thus deserve to be labeled tendentious editors. We don't tolerate such editors well because they are fighting against the basis of all our content, which is RS. Another, rather automatic, side to that story is, when they defend the misinformation pumped out by Fox News, they are also engaged in undermining our RS policy by supporting Fox News when it misinforms us. My modus operandi in such cases is this: To be on the safe side, whenever we find good information on Fox News that's worth including here, we should stop and double check it with more RS. If it's not there, it's not worth including. If it is found in such sources as The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, etc, then use them as the source and don't use Fox News as the source. That's the safest procedure. My priority is to use good sources and avoid bad ones. I hope you share that goal. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 01:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
L'Origine du monde againJust letting you know that L'Origine du monde may need to be watched again. I already knew that the editor was unblocked; the community has agreed to give the editor another chance. As you may remember, the editor would repeatedly spam penis and related articles with urination and urolagnia material, and make other problematic edits. I just reverted this. I don't think it's standard to include "commons category" like that. I also left a recent message on the editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Some questions for Trump supportersI don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:
What's your position on these very well-established facts? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
LOL. Do YOU believe anyone read anything on social media and decided to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? Provide a reliable source that shows evidence of this happening because the concept is truly unfathomable. Batvette ( talk) 05:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
|