Talk:Politico: Difference between revisions
→Controversy over Trump/Macron visit to Mount Vernon: new section |
No edit summary |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
Recent report from Politico here: [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/10/trump-mount-vernon-george-washington-226619]. Mount Vernon (!) released a statement correcting the record here: [https://www.mountvernon.org/about/news/article/statement-from-the-mount-vernon-ladies-association-about-the-trump-macron-visit/]. Not sure how or whether to incorporate this into the controversy section. Offering it for consideration. [[User:Shinealittlelight|Shinealittlelight]] ([[User talk:Shinealittlelight|talk]]) 21:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC) |
Recent report from Politico here: [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/10/trump-mount-vernon-george-washington-226619]. Mount Vernon (!) released a statement correcting the record here: [https://www.mountvernon.org/about/news/article/statement-from-the-mount-vernon-ladies-association-about-the-trump-macron-visit/]. Not sure how or whether to incorporate this into the controversy section. Offering it for consideration. [[User:Shinealittlelight|Shinealittlelight]] ([[User talk:Shinealittlelight|talk]]) 21:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Objectivty of Politico == |
|||
If you watch youtube right now, and search for Joe Biden, and the problems associated (e. g. Joe physically touching/kissing women but also girls), you can find at the least two videos. One is the original footage, mostly uncut; the other is a variant seen by Politico where some of the problematic parts were cut out. |
|||
I don't buy into "randomness" or "accident" when this smells (to me) like a cover-up but I may be biased. So it would be best if other, independent people could have a look and think about it; ideally perhaps an unaffiliated professor or tech-person could try to objectively and accurately identify all differences. IF it, however had, would become clear that Politico was acting as a "soft" filter here, in favour of Joe Biden, then this is simply not a "neutral" activity but in fact came with a specific goal. This would then be an attempt to influence the opinion of people - think about it this way, random people would find either the original footage, or the shorter variant by Politico, with the problematic parts cut out. But if the people never KNOW the original video footage, then how can they understand the more specific complaints about Joe Biden? Note that this is one SPECIFIC example, but there may be more, also in the future - and it connects to wikipedia indirectly because you need a lot more verification in general (which is another reason why I won't change the main article, due to my possible own bias; it would need people who are not biased either way to make an objective analysis). But IF it is true then what Politico is doing should be viewed more critically in general; that can not be explained "accidentally" if the problematic parts are cut out anymore. This was also why I looked up Politico, to find out more whether they are affiliated with political parties. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F|2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F]] ([[User talk:2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F|talk]]) 15:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:30, 15 April 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Politico article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Politico article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article refers to a periodical that doesn't have its ISSN information listed. If you can, please provide it. |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 22-3-2018 by AgnosticPreachersKid.
|
A redlink edit today
A new, redlink editor with only this one edit added a "Controversy" section that, while in and of itself may be pertinent, was written in a partisan way and cited a specifically rightwing source rather than mainstream press. The editor also added commentary beyond the fact itself for what seemed a political agenda. As per WP:BRD, I invited the editor to discuss this problematic edit. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sources
czar 03:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Beriboe: Websites like "AllSides.com" and "mediabiasfactcheck.com" are not reliable sources; they are primary, self-published sources. For help identifying reliable sources, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, or go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. And note that the material you added would not be acceptable even if they attributed in-text because of our undue weight policy. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Controversy over Trump/Macron visit to Mount Vernon
Recent report from Politico here: [1]. Mount Vernon (!) released a statement correcting the record here: [2]. Not sure how or whether to incorporate this into the controversy section. Offering it for consideration. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Objectivty of Politico
If you watch youtube right now, and search for Joe Biden, and the problems associated (e. g. Joe physically touching/kissing women but also girls), you can find at the least two videos. One is the original footage, mostly uncut; the other is a variant seen by Politico where some of the problematic parts were cut out.
I don't buy into "randomness" or "accident" when this smells (to me) like a cover-up but I may be biased. So it would be best if other, independent people could have a look and think about it; ideally perhaps an unaffiliated professor or tech-person could try to objectively and accurately identify all differences. IF it, however had, would become clear that Politico was acting as a "soft" filter here, in favour of Joe Biden, then this is simply not a "neutral" activity but in fact came with a specific goal. This would then be an attempt to influence the opinion of people - think about it this way, random people would find either the original footage, or the shorter variant by Politico, with the problematic parts cut out. But if the people never KNOW the original video footage, then how can they understand the more specific complaints about Joe Biden? Note that this is one SPECIFIC example, but there may be more, also in the future - and it connects to wikipedia indirectly because you need a lot more verification in general (which is another reason why I won't change the main article, due to my possible own bias; it would need people who are not biased either way to make an objective analysis). But IF it is true then what Politico is doing should be viewed more critically in general; that can not be explained "accidentally" if the problematic parts are cut out anymore. This was also why I looked up Politico, to find out more whether they are affiliated with political parties. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class District of Columbia articles
- Low-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Virginia articles
- Low-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- C-Class Websites articles
- Mid-importance Websites articles
- C-Class Websites articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Articles edited by connected contributors