User talk:213.47.44.99

January 2017

Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fake news website have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

welcome to wikipedia

I've tried to answer your questions over at Talk:Fake news website. To put something into a wikipedia article, best practices are to WP:PROVEIT by linking to a newspaper/magazine/book/televisionNewsProgram/similar, which documents what you are adding. Also, you have to write in a neutral fashion, even when the source itself might be biased, so for instance you cannot just insert CNN into the first sentence of fake-news-website, since that is WP:UNDUE weight -- the term is fairly old, has been around since at least 2005, with precursors much earlier, and although there was a recent spate of coverage mentioning Donald Trump's altercation with the CNN journalist, that doesn't suddenly leap CNN to the top of the heap. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the bulk of the sources say, which means the CNN thing is WP:NOTEWORTHY for a sentence in the article somewhere (I'm trying to add a subsection on media bias but it is slow going), but the bulk of the sources do not say CNN is fake news at the moment, so wikipedia also ought not imply such things. Make sense? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

CFCF, you are reverting sourced additions with no edit-summary. While I agree that CNN logo does not belong in the Template:multiple_image portion, that is merely WP:UNDUE, and most definitely not WP:VANDALISM. 213.47, please wait until we get agreement (from interested wikipedians see WP:CONSENSUS) on the talkpage, about where specifically to insert the sourced material, before adding it again. As I mentioned before, some wikipedians are super-touchy. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeatedly engaging in disruptive behavior and ignoring clear policies and consensus is vandalism. Please read the policies you linked to. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, they inserted it once without a source, and somebody reverted it, and then on the talkpage I helped them find some sources, so they re-inserted it. This is a beginner, not a vandal, and you have been around long enough to know the difference. You just complained yourself about WP:DONTBITE on your own talkpage on January 7th, did you not? Calling the insertion of sourced material, and the misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE -- one of wikipedia's most subtle policies may I please point out -- "vandalism" is completely silly. Calling two insertions of disputed material "disruptive" is also pretty silly. Cool down please Carl, this is not a wiki-emergency which requires drastic banhammer action, this is just somebody who needs calm guidance. As for your own actions 213.47, you are making some good-faith mistakes, but if you will stay calm yourself, I'm sure the other wikipedians will also soon be calmer  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This guy here is already 10 years on Wikipedia. He should know how it works. And if he acts like some child and is not able to just talk about it and tell me how to add it, then i don't think that the rest of the main Wikipedia authors are any better. Because if this would be the case, then some 10 year old user wouldn't act like that. Block me, if you want, i won't contribute anything more, if everything i have to expect is that someone with political bias will instantly delete it.213.47.44.99 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of striking some of your comments, since they were not very nice, per WP:IAR. I can do that because I've been here a long time, and understand when to apply IAR ... you however, 213.47, should please NOT yet go about applying WP:IAR and editing other people's comments, like on the article-talkpage. CFCF was themselves engaging in WP:IAR, methinks, though I disagree they were applying it correctly. Now, I do understand that you also feel that you have been treated shabbily, 213.47, since a couple wikipedians have falsely accused you of vandalism (which itself is not very nice AND they ought to know better). But as I tried to explain earlier, this particular wikipedia topic-page is a sensitive one, and it puts a lot of people on edge. So the best thing to do is stay calm and explain things on the article-talkpage, and we'll get to a proper addition at some point. I can tell you now though, that adding the CNN logo at the top won't happen -- it just isn't supported by the sources. Adding the well-sourced sentence about Trump calling that CNN journalist 'fake news' is pretty much guaranteed to be added, but the question is exactly where to add it (not in the first sentence and not in the overview -- mayhap we need a new subsection or mayhap it will go in 'definition' or in the 'united states' subsections that already exist). Until there is a fairly strong agreement on exact wording and exact placement, please do NOT add it back in again, you will only make the touchy people more touchy. I do see how hanging around a bunch of touchy people might not be very pleasant, but I can only say that most of wikipedia is not like this, and you have just picked an especially-touchy subject for your first editing-adventure in your wikipedia career. I would prefer you stick around, but if you are going to stay, you'll have to stay cool and not let such things get to you. Even wikipedians with a decade under their belt make mistakes, but that's no reason to accuse them of intentionally doing bad things. See WP:AGF, and yes I realize you are not getting the same courtesy in return at the moment, but two wrongs do not make a right. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to stay calm. I tried to discuss the issue on the Talk Page and tried to explain why it should be added and finally, after i thought that we managed to get somewhere and that i had an acceptable sentence with enough sources to add, some 10 year old user just reverts it, threatens me with a block and puts the discussion in the archive — without saying anything and without ever joining the discussion.

And finally he tries to explain to me that the statement of the President Elect of the US is totally irrelevant and that trying to mention it is vandalism.

The conclusion that CFCF has political bias is totally reasonable. It's not an insult, it's a fact. And i am not mad at him, because many people are not able to just ignore their own political opinion. But such a person should never ever have any responsibility in any politics related part of Wikipedia. If i do something wrong, i am sorry and i am thankful that you tell me that and i will try to improve myself, but anyway, i don't think that i will ever try to edit something in Wikipedia again, if people like CFCF exist.213.47.44.99 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No person is entirely politically neutral, but this is not the core of the issue. There is a clearly defined and accepted definition of what a "fake news website" is, and what it constitutes. CNN does not fulfill this definition, and reliable sources do not so much as suggest they do. When a political figure says something: that does not automatically make it factual — I would prefer not to have to make the comparison, but I daresay you would object if Duterte, Putin, or Xi stated this type of thing and Wikipedia went on touting it as a fact. Fact ≠ opinion, and the inability to distinguish them falls under WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED, and is one of few reasons to forego WP:BITE. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit-conflict, sticking it here where I was originally replying) CFCF does have a political bias, yes, as do we all. I'm not arguing that is non-factual, I'm arguing that is non-pertinent (to improving the content of wikipedia articles), and moreover that it is non-nice (which tends to increase content-disputes into conflicts rather than decrease tension so we can all get back to working collaboratively). As long as we all keep our bias out of mainspace per WP:NPOV, it is okay we have bias. Same logic applies to 'reliable' sources... as long as we summarize what they say in neutral fashion for mainspace, it is okay if the source itself is biased aka non-neutral. So my advice 213.47 is pretty simple: if you do decide to stick, you are quite welcome to do so, you are a quick learner who went from beginner with no idea of the very paradoxical wikipedia-definition of "reliable" sources, to solid contributor inserting sourced content, within just a few minutes. And then were called 'incompetent' by somebody who ought to know better, over failure to deeply understand (as I apparently must point out yet again) one of the most subtle policies on-wiki, the oft-abused WP:UNDUE. In a nutshell, by adding the CNN logo, you are implying something to the readership (see WP:Readers_first) which is not actually reflective of the bulk of the sources, namely, that CNN.com is one of the standard examples of a 'fake news website' in the same ontological category as Denver Guardian... and that latter ontological category is, in fact, what the topic of the Fake news website article, is supposedly-supposed to be. We're not there yet, but I'm trying. So, CFCF is correct that wikipedia should not have the CNN logo up top, mixed in with the clickbait-hoax websites, per WP:DUE. On the other hand, the *sentence* you inserted, 213.47, about the fact that Trump told a CNN journalist 'you are fake news' almost certainly belongs on-wiki, either in Fake news in the United States or arguably in Fake news website#United States since it received instant international press coverage (and is thus of worldwide rather than just nationwide interest per the sources). It was not vandalism, and the people calling it that are flat wrong to do so. And I expect that, within a few more days, that sentence *will* get into mainspace, after a lot of tedious wrangling on the talkpage, over the exact phrasing, and exact placement. Now, if you go to the lefthand side of the page, and click Special:Random, you will find wikipedia is chock-full of articles which are NOT as touchy and tedious as the one you happened upon, Fake news website. Plenty of places to work in peace, adding reliably-sourced sentences and improving the summarization of all human knowledge. But I can guarantee that you will, without a doubt, run into some touchy people sooner or later. I hope that this taste of the darker side of being a wikipedian has not soured you forever, and that in a month or a year you might give it a whirl again. It can be fun, and you would probably like it. But I won't candy coat the fact that wikipedia is in serious trouble, when it comes to being a nice place per WP:5. If you are an anon, or indeed anybody, you will be called a vandal and an incompetent, sooner or later (I've been falsely called both just the past couple months). Wikipedia is full of people that will do their best to get you to leave, and will say things that are wrong but never apologize, and do things that are wrongheaded and never undo them, and nothing that you or I do can really fix that. CFCF called you some names, and got the pageprot installed, but by wikipedia standards that is "mild" and you should not be under the impression that this is a one-off fluke, it is pretty much par for the course on the 1% of articles that are controversial albeit not on the 99% which are non-controversial. Such happening are a small part of the larger WP:Systemic bias problem which is unlikely to ever be corrected, and will take many years to correct (if that is still even possible). Most people don't even recognize that the core problem exists, as your experience here proves. I do thank you for bringing up the trump-says-cnn-is-fake-news factoid, that was a good-faith attempt to improve wikipedia, and wish you well whether you decide to stick around as a wikipedian or not. If you do stick, AND you keep working on controversial articles, my advice is to concentrate solely on sourcing and phrasing, and just ignore any commentary that might be seen as WP:BAIT, aka unintentionally leading towards conflict, rather than away from it. Hereabouts that is known as 'concentrating on content not contributors' although lots of people have trouble doing so, even when they know the rules. Best, 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And if some news station says it without having some reliable sources, it can be false too, like the Golden Shower Gate CNN reported — and sometimes, it's even deliberately false, like the GoldenShowerGate and PizzaGate. Then we talk about "Fake News"… such a coincidence, isn't it?

That you believe that it's false what Trump said (out of your personal political opinion) isn't important. If such a highly important person says something like that, it has to be part of the article. It's funny that you think that i don't realize that fact is not the same as opinion, because that's exactly what's your problem. Just because you quote something, doesn't mean that it's a fact.

You know, a good way to minimize the own political bias is to just switch names — if it somehow sounds different just because some other politician said it, then you know that you are biased. If Obama said something about Fake News of an major news station in an official press conference, would you quote it in the article? OH… WAIT!… Just read Fake news website:

"U.S. President Barack Obama said a disregard for facts created a "dust cloud of nonsense".[29] Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Alex Younger called fake news propaganda online dangerous for democratic nations."

Uuuups!!! Somehow this is not vandalism?! How is this possible? I am wondering!

To be honest: Please CFCF! Please stay away from political articles! You are just not able to realize your own bias.213.47.44.99 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we quote Obama, and yes, it is likely we will quote Trump as well (especially considering Trump actually said 'fake news' whereas Obama was just talking about the more general subject of nonsense which "reliable" sources converted into a statement about 'fake news'). But while pointing out the disconnect is fine, sarcasm won't help here. Just point out the problem, and calmly discuss on the article-talkpage. Anybody is fine to edit, even if they have personal bias, whether that be pro-Trump or anti-Trump or whatever. Though obviously, tempers can tend to run higher in political articles, or otherwise-controversial ones, so it pays to keep as cool as a cucumber. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

nest of hornets

So, as the ever-helpful JzG has oh-so-politely summarized, now that you have stooped to the same level of name-calling as the other participants, the talkpage discussion is over, at least temporarily.

• 16:23, 12 January 2017‎ JzG. (→‎Wikipedia bias — No mention of CNN being Fake News allowed: What part of "we're done here" did you not understand?)

It can be revisited at a later date, tomorrow or in a week. See WP:TIND. I have little doubt, actually, that somebody else won't come along and put the content into the article, not realizing that there was a truncated talkpage-discussion about exact phrasing. And get the same treatment as you. But eventually the rewrite will happen, and when it does, most problems will be corrected. But as mentioned above, wikipedia is not for the faint-hearted; if you want to get things into mainspace, you have to follow the mantra of elementary school, stick n stone can break my bones but words can never hurt me, and unfailingly talk only about souces and phrasing, no matter what other wikipedians may do. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You are actually a sane and nice person, keep up the good work!213.47.44.99 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

In real life I'm actually an WP:OGRE but on wikipedia I have to be WP:NICE since that is policy here  ;-)

Feel free to come back anytime you like, but do be aware that wikipedia is going through some growing pains, so almost any politics-article (or related topics like global warming and guns and abortion and religion and supreme court cases and so on and so on and SO on) are going to be "touchy." Wikipedia is still just a teenager, though, 2001 through 2017 means it is roughly a sophomore in high school right about now, so this is probably to be expected. I think within another couple decades either it will have solved the neutrality problem, or fallen into disrepair, but I'm hoping for the solved-it outcome personally. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate your effort and i am curious about how Wikipedia handles this issue. I will at least check occasionally how the Fake News website is developing ;) 213.47.44.99 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you are making the wrong request at the wrong article with the wrong sources. It could be argued at Talk:CNN, for example, but one man mischaracterising one news organisation as "fake news" because of butthurt does not have any particular relevance to the subject of fake news websites. Just that, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

So you shouldn't argue about Fake News in a article which is called Fake News website?213.47.44.99 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sort of yes and sort of no... at present Wikipedia doesn't have an article on fake news, just a disambig page, and the first hit there is fake news website... which despite the title has body-prose which is almost exclusively about 'fake news' as opposed to being about the much narrower subject of 'fake news website(s)' per se. And I think that is necessary, one cannot understand what a fake news website produces and traffics in, unless one understands fake news stories. But yes, the difference between fake news and fake news websites, was definitely part of the difficulty -- 213.47 was trying to put the CNN logo in with the actual fake news websites like Denver Guardian, which was a mistake. As for the other insertion, of the sentence about what Trump said of CNN, *that* definitely belongs in the fake news website article, to the extent that we have all the content about fake news on wikipedia there, rather than at a concept-page (which is currently exactly what we have). If not the specific Trump-quotation, definitely the broader coverage about the fluctuating meaning of the terminology, belongs, of which Trump's claim is an example. Anyways, this sort of stuff is article-talkpage material, but it does help illustrate that the topic-matter (which is tricky and complicated in addition to being politically charged) can lead to disagreements quite easily, even without namecalling and such. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, somebody screwed up and deleted the fake news DAB page, which now is simply a redirect to hoax. Not a correct translation of the term!  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the disambig page, Fake_news_(disambiguation), which was where fake news pointed until earlier today. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN is a storied news organisation which is much larger than just its website. I would say a good case could be made for a standalone article on the subject of fake news, but right now we have no such article. Eve then it is fairly likely that many people will reject Trump's characterisation of CNN as undue in context, since it is blindingly obvious that CNN is not a fake news source. Of course it's not infallible, I cannot think of a single news organisation in the world that has never published a bullshit story in the belief it is true, but fake news is different form being wrong, and different from being insufficiently critical of an ideologically favourable story. Fake news is about publishing stories either knowing them to be false, or having total disregard tot heir factual accuracy. Breitbart meets the latter test (e.g. its with climate denialist articles by the deranged Delingpole), CNN clearly does not. Guy (Help!) 01:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is your own personal political bias that it's "blindly obvious that CNN is not a fake news source". Fact is that CNN forced GoldenShowerGate, which is on the same level as PizzaGate, which is mentioned in fake news in the United States. If you take the definition for Fake News from fake news websites, then CNN clearly is Fake News and is spreading deliberately false information to support their political bias. Yes, Fake News is different from just being wrong, Fake News has a "goal", and this is the case with CNN.

Every single little small Fake News assumption is listed in the article, but this one, which is about a major news station, got reported worldwide and is claimed by the President Elect of the USA suddenly is not important enough for you? Even if you won't accept that CNN is spreading Fake News, you still have to accept that the Trump quote is important. And Yes, they have TV too, but why is that important? CNN has a website, so it's not a problem to list that one as a Fake News website.

Let me summarize the first discussion i had here with you on Wikipedia:

• after the discussion and the question about how to add it, CFCF just moves the discussion to the archive, reverts my edit and claims that it's vandalism and threatens to block me, without ever trying to say anything at the Talk page and without joining the discussion. And after that he writes some text full of logical fallacies.
• User:MPants at work ignores sources and uses "ROFLMAO" as an argument and tries to derail the discussion by forcing a discussion about Obama Quotes on a Talkpage about Fake News.
• Guy make some incredible suggestion that quotes from a person should be in one specific article but not in articles related to the quote… But no! Not for every person! This somehow should just apply for Trump and nobody else. And he is also the same user who closes the discussion, with some very questionable comment.

Yeah guys, you are totally reliable! And this are some main authors of political articles in Wikipedia. I guess that Wikipedia has some serious problems.213.47.44.99 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not my personal opinion, it's what the sources say. CNN is a respected news organisation with an editorial leaning, Breitbart is an explicitly partisan website with a long history of publishing ideologically consonant bullshit. It gives an editorial platform to white supremacists, climate change deniers and homophobes, and they use this platform to publish false debunked claims - and Breitbart does not care. They do nto withdraw the bullshit. The issue is one of false equivalence and false balance. If a partisan website makes a claim and the mainstream news media debunks it, the truth does not lie halfway between the two. Mainstream is not a political ideology to be balanced against the fringe, mainstream means the consensus view of the world.

You don't seem to have understood WP:UNDUE. You need to understand it. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What sources? You mean sources who belong to the same company as CNN, Time Warner? Or do you mean Clickbait and Fake News sites like BuzzFeed News, which is your main source of information in fake news websites? Because if i visit news sites which are not related to CNN and BuzzFeed (Remember: These two spread the Fake News of GoldenShowerGate) and don't just copy CNN stories, they all criticize CNN and BuzzFeed (Example: NewYorkTimes). And even CNN in their own statement said that BuzzFeed is to blame. They just try to blame the other one.

We are not talking about Breitbart here, i don't get it why you mention them. Why are you constructing some straw man? And if we talk about a long history of publishing constant bullshit and Fake News, do you remember the Nayirah (testimony)? This Fake News led to war, CNN was one of the main news stations who supported it. And some more current Fake News, which are supporting war, are news like this with non-existent sources like the White Helmets, who are faking news and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is some guy in London who sells clothes and wasn't in Syria for at least 15 years.

You guys aren't able to write just one single comment without using some form of Formal fallacy and in your Articles you quote every single little unconfirmed allegation from the left leaning Clickbaiting and Fake News Site BuzzFeed, which has some clear political bias, but a statement of the most important man in the world isn't important to you and if someone mentions it, it's vandalism and you cling to your bias and can't accept sources with facts which are not compatible to your personal political opinion. Especially you, Guy, are writing some serious problematic comments. You have some real problem about political bias here in Wikipedia and i hope you are able to fix it.

I suggest that you read about Formal fallacy, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning, Hitchens' razor and Whataboutism213.47.44.99 (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Adhering to facts is not left-leaning. That is the same as saying that making up facts is right-wing. Take up issues with reliable sources at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, what you are doing now is disruptive. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I never said such a thing. You are constructing a straw man. Again. Congratulation!213.47.44.99 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wait! I just realized that you try to imply that Fake News and Clickbait BuzzFeed is "Adhering to facts"! Please read this: [1]213.47.44.99 (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

213.47, since you are new I will spell this out for you. Carl is not an admin -- he can threaten to get you blocked, and accuse you of vandalism (wrongly) and of disruption (also wrongly -- this is usertalk where significant latitude is permitted) but only an admin can actually block you. Guy is an admin, see also WP:WikiKnight, and although his wiki-honour will not allow him to block you for violating WP:5P4 on your own usertalkpage (unless you REALLY go off the handle), he absolutely positively can and will block you, the very next time you edit mainspace or an article-talkpage, in any way which violates the ninety thousand pages of the WP:PAG. As you are still a beginner, I can guarantee that you will commit such a violation, and as a student of wikipedia innards, I can further guarantee that you will be blocked because of it, should you continue on your current course. Halt your current course. Arguing with an admin, about politics, when you disagree with their politics, is a WP:BADIDEA.

...to answer your question, the reason to bring up Breitbart, is because 1) Guy is an admin -- see previous paragraph -- and because 2) the subtle concept of WP:UNDUE is directly related to the wikipedia concept of 'reliable' sources which has literally nothing to do with real-world reliability but which Guy firmly believes is THE DEFINITION of literal reliability aka that CNN is incapable of being in the wrong except by unintentional accident, and 3) because a discussion of sources and whether they can be considered trustworthy is the core of how wikipedia works. Everything stems from there: wikipedia has WP:Systemic_bias because it treats mainstream international news media as the truth (aka WP:WIKIVOICE) despite media bias. (Talking about CNN here, not BuzzFeed, and definitely not Breitbart, though sometimes Daily Kos will get by on wikipedia -- and on a case-by-case basis even specific Breitbart articles.)

To somebody from Sweden like Carl, or somebody from the UK like Guy, that situation is correct and proper (or even a bit 'too conservative'). To somebody like yourself, 213.47, who seems a wee bit skeptical of the lamestream media aka the politico-media complex (to use the UK terminology), the very idea *that* wikipedia depends on biased sources is a problem. But that is a beginner mistake. Wikipedia is NOT here to make the world better, wikipedia is here to reflect the world as it currently is, which means CNN is "a respected news organisation" (correct per 'reliable' sources including CNN and their peers), "with an editorial leaning" (correct per media bias in the United States which is also sourced to the mainstream media and mainstream academia), and also that Breitbart is "an explicitly partisan website" (they are per the same media bias in the United States type of analysis) with a long history of publishing ideologically-motivated falsehoods (which is per the Breitbart wikipedia-article but only loosely -- see previous paragraphs). So yeah, when CNN makes a mistake it is errata but when Breitbart makes a mistake it is racist/bigoted/unscientific. In my estimation, Guy only really cares about the last one; his mission on wikipedia as a WikiKnight is to defend mainstream science, so naturally he sees you and Donald Trump as his jousting opponents.

Please stop jousting with admins that you disagree with about politics. As I said before: stick to talking about sources and about phrasing, if and when you decide to return to article-talkpages and become a wikipedian. And if you do not so intend, why keep arguing here?... none shall be convinced, all the participants besides yourself have put many years into the nature of the wiki.... 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)