User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Dossier: replies
Tag: contentious topics alert
Line 459: Line 459:
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. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
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. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
: I think we need to keep something in mind when comparing article size. Trump has a million subarticles, whereas this is just one article to cover a very notable subject that's still mentioned every single day. It is the key and roadmap for the whole Russia investigation. Just keep that in mind. It's very important. Also try to save the references. Such BLP sensitive stuff must have multiple sources, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Otherwise, simplifying is often welcome. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
: I think we need to keep something in mind when comparing article size. Trump has a million subarticles, whereas this is just one article to cover a very notable subject that's still mentioned every single day. It is the key and roadmap for the whole Russia investigation. Just keep that in mind. It's very important. Also try to save the references. Such BLP sensitive stuff must have multiple sources, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Otherwise, simplifying is often welcome. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

== Annual DS alert refresh - American politics ==

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This 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 [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[WP:AC/DS#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the [[WP:AC/DS#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[WP:ArbCom|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2|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.&nbsp;Just getting you current!
}} &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC){{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->

Revision as of 18:56, 24 January 2019

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

A basic citation template I like to use.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is a basic citation template I like to use:
  • Template: <ref name=" ">{{cite web |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |title= |website= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>
  • Contents: <ref name="Harding_11/15/2017">{{cite web |last=Harding |first=Luke |title=How Trump walked into Putin's web |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=November 15, 2017 |url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke |access-date=December 24, 2017}}</ref>[1]

I like to choose a unique ref name, so I use the last name(s) of the author(s) and publication date.

  • See this citation tool: Yadkard
  • An alternative date format is the ISO format: "Harding-20171115"
This is good practice indeed. I also like that you use some breathing space between parameters, that makes citations much easier to read and update. Let me suggest an improvement: when you cite a newspaper, replace cite web by cite news, and use newspaper=The Guardian instead of website=The Guardian. There are handy substitutes for "newspaper": you may equivalently use "magazine" or the generic "work" (which I tend to use because it's shorter and always valid). It's also nice to link to the article of the cited newspaper, such as [[The Guardian]]. Be careful that piped links in citations need to be made explicit, so that you need to type work=[[Time (magazine)|Time]], not just work=[[Time (magazine)|]]. Finally, ISO date is better practice because of the confusion that often arises between US and British ordering of months and days. Hope this helps; feel free to discard this message. — JFG talk 06:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heck no! I'm keeping this great message. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
Notable quotes
  • "When opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the weight it deserves, in some cases no mention at all. Framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinion which can be ignored, and frame debunked conspiracy theories as factual." -- BullRangifer
  • "Claims made with misleading evidence or no evidence whatsoever--especially in political contexts--should always be referred to as 'false' when they are utterly unfounded. If any evidence ever emerges for Seth Rich's involvement--or for any captive koalas--then another term should be considered." -- FatGandhi 15:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "For the 'whataboutism' thing to work, you need an actual 'about' to 'what'." -- Calton 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."

-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR


Hatting this for now. So much else to deal with.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Trump's dubious relationship to truth

We should just follow what RS say, and that will usually be "anti-Trump" and factual. That's just the way it works. At other times and with other presidents it might be otherwise. He just happens to be on the wrong side of facts much of the time, and since RS document that, it appears they are being "anti-Trump", when they are just defending facts.

Here are just a few of the myriad RS (I have saved literally hundreds of very RS on the subject) which document Trump's dubious relationship to truth (completely off-the-charts, beyond anything fact checkers have ever encountered):

  • "I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace[1]
  • "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward."[2]
  • President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims.[3]
  • Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'[4]
  • "...what's even more amazing than a President who is averaging -- repeat: averaging -- more than eight untruths a day is this: Trump's penchant for saying false things is exponentially increasing as his presidency wears on."[5]
  • "[W]hat we have never had is a president of the United States who uses lying and untruth as a basic method to promote his policies, his beliefs and his way of approaching the American people and engaging in the world.... Uniquely, we have a president who does not believe in truth." -- Carl Bernstein[6]
Sources

  1. ^ Folkenflik, David (August 20, 2018). "Rudy Giuliani Stuns Politicians And Philosophers With 'Truth Isn't Truth' Statement". NPR. Retrieved September 19, 2018.
  2. ^ Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "Zurawik: Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  3. ^ Kessler, Glenn; Rizzo, Salvador; Kelly, Meg (September 13, 2018). "President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  4. ^ Toles, Tom (September 13, 2018). "Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  5. ^ Cillizza, Chris (September 13, 2018). "Donald Trump's absolutely mind-boggling assault on facts is actually picking up steam". CNN. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  6. ^ Keller, Megan (October 21, 2018). "Carl Bernstein: Trump 'uses lying and untruth as a basic method'". The Hill. Retrieved October 29, 2018.
Trump's falsehoods
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Trump's falsehoods

See also: Donald Trump § False statements

"I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace[1]

As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks,[2][3][4][5][6] and experience teaches that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards"[7] because he's a "habitual liar".[8] In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies".[9][10][5]

Fact checkers have kept a close tally of his falsehoods, and, according to one study, the rate of false statements has increased, with the percentage of his words that are part of a false claim rising over the course of his presidency.[5] According to The New York Times, Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office,[2] 1,318 total in his first 263 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" political analysis column of The Washington Post,[11] 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.[12] After 558 days in office, the tally was at 4,229 false or misleading claims, and it had risen to an average of 7.6 per day from 4.9 during Trump's first 100 days in office.[13]

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."[14] Kessler 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."[3]

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."[15]

Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media.[16] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.[16]

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.[17][18][19][20] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures,[21][22][23] Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts".[24] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."[25]

Author, 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."[26] 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".[27]

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."[28]

David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true.[29][30] 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.[31] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses.[32] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving[33] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."[34]

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;[35][36] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide";[37][38][39] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes;[40][41] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".[42][43][44]

A poll in May 2018 found that "just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy".[45]

The Editorial Board of The New York Times took this telling sideswipe at Trump when commenting on the unfitness of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court: "A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth."[46]

Other sources
  • "The First 100 Lies: The Trump Team's Flurry Of Falsehoods. The president and his aides succeeded in reaching the mark in just 36 days." Igor Bobic[47]
  • "Killing the Truth: How Trump's Attack on the Free Press Endangers Democracy" Philip Kotler[49]
  • The New Yorker has published a series of 14 essays entitled "Trump and the Truth". They "examine the untruths that have fueled Donald Trump's Presidential campaign."[50]
  • The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board wrote a seven-part series about Trump's dishonesty, starting with the article "Our Dishonest President".[51]

Fact checking Trump

Trump's incessant attacks on the media, reliable sources, and truth have kept an army of fact checkers busy, the latter having never encountered a more deceptive public person. Tony Burman wrote: "The falsehoods and distortions uttered by Trump and his senior officials have particularly inflamed journalists and have been challenged — resulting in a growing prominence of 'fact-checkers' and investigative reporting."[52]

Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers:

"Here's the problem: As fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in August, whereas Clinton lies as much as the average politician, President Donald Trump's lying is "off the charts." No prominent politician in memory bests Trump for spouting spectacular, egregious, easily disproved lies. The birther claim. The vote fraud claim. The attendance at the inauguration claim. And on and on and on. Every fact checker — Kessler, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact — finds a level of mendacity unequaled by any politician ever scrutinized. For instance, 70 percent of his campaign statements checked by PolitiFact were mostly false, totally false, or "pants on fire" false."[53]

PolitiFact
  • "Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter"[54]
  • "Donald Trump's file"[55]
  • "PolitiFact designates the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump as our 2015 Lie of the Year."[56]
  • "Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods."[57]
  • "7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office."[58]
FactCheck.org
  • Donald Trump's file[59]
  • "100 Days of Whoppers. Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president."[60]
  • "The Whoppers of 2017. President Trump monopolizes our list of the year's worst falsehoods and bogus claims."[61]
The Washington Post
  • "Throughout President Trump's first 100 days, the Fact Checker team will be tracking false and misleading claims made by the president since Jan. 20. In the 33 days so far, we've counted 132 false or misleading claims."[62]
  • "Fact-checking President Trump's claims on the Paris climate change deal"[63]
  • President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims[64]
Toronto Star

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:

  • "Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things."[65]
  • "Confessions of a Trump Fact-Checker"[66]
  • "The Star's running tally of the straight-up lies, exaggerations and deceptions the president of the United States of America has said, so far."[67]
The Guardian
  • "How does Donald Trump lie? A fact checker's final guide."[68]
  • "Smoke and mirrors: how Trump manipulates the media and opponents."[69]

NOTE: Many of the sources above are older. The situation has not improved, but is rapidly getting much worse, as described by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Ashley Parker: "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true."[70]

As Trump rapidly accelerates the rate of his false statements, one suspects he is following the advice of his friend and advisor, Steve Bannon:

"The Democrats don't matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit."[71]

References

  1. ^ Folkenflik, David (August 20, 2018). "Rudy Giuliani Stuns Politicians And Philosophers With 'Truth Isn't Truth' Statement". NPR. Retrieved September 19, 2018.
  2. ^ a b Qiu, Linda (April 29, 2017). "Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days". The New York Times.
  3. ^ a b Kessler, Glenn; Lee, Michelle Ye Hee (May 1, 2017). "President Trump's first 100 days: The fact check tally". The Washington Post.
  4. ^ Qiu, Linda (June 22, 2017). "In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump". The New York Times.
  5. ^ a b c Dale, Daniel (July 14, 2018). "Trump has said 1,340,330 words as president. They're getting more dishonest, a Star study shows". Toronto Star. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
  6. ^ Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). "Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication". The New York Times. Retrieved August 7, 2017.
  7. ^ Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "Zurawik: Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  8. ^ Stelter, Brian; Bernstein, Carl; Sullivan, Margaret; Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "How to cover a habitual liar". CNN. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  9. ^ The New York Times (June 25, 2018). "Lies? False Claims? When Trump's Statements Aren't True". The New York Times. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
  10. ^ Dale, Daniel (December 22, 2017). "Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn't worked". Toronto Star. Retrieved July 14, 2018.
  11. ^ Lee, Michelle Ye Hee; Kessler, Glenn; Kelly, Meg (October 10, 2017). "President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
  12. ^ "President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days". The Washington Post. November 14, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  13. ^ Kessler, Glenn; Rizzo, Salvador; Kelly, Meg (August 1, 2018). "President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 11, 2018.
  14. ^ Milbank, Dana (July 1, 2016). "The facts behind Donald Trump's many falsehoods". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
  15. ^ Konnikova, Maria (January 20, 2017). "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
  16. ^ a b "Trump's trust problem". Politico. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
  17. ^ "From the archives: Sean Spicer on Inauguration Day crowds". PolitiFact. January 21, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  18. ^ "FACT CHECK: Was Donald Trump's Inauguration the Most Viewed in History?". Snopes. January 22, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  19. ^ "The Facts on Crowd Size". FactCheck.org. January 23, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  20. ^ Rein, Lisa (March 6, 2017). "Here are the photos that show Obama's inauguration crowd was bigger than Trump's". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2017.
  21. ^ Hirschfeld Davis, Julie; Rosenberg, Matthew (January 21, 2017). "With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift". The New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2017.
  22. ^ Makarechi, Kia (January 2, 2014). "Trump Spokesman Sean Spicer's Lecture on Media Accuracy Is Peppered With Lies". Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  23. ^ Kessler, Glenn. "Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  24. ^ Jaffe, Alexandra. "Kellyanne Conway: WH Spokesman Gave 'Alternative Facts' on Inauguration Crowd". NBC News. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  25. ^ Blake, Aaron (January 22, 2017). "Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump's team has 'alternative facts.' Which pretty much says it all". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
  26. ^ DePaulo, Bella (December 7, 2017). "Perspective - I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  27. ^ DePaulo, Bella (December 9, 2017). "How President Trump's Lies Are Different From Other People's". Psychology Today. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  28. ^ Smith, Jeremy Adam (March 24, 2017). "How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support". Scientific American. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  29. ^ Fahrenthold, David (October 4, 2016). "Trump's co-author on 'The Art of the Deal' donates $55,000 royalty check to charity". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2017.
  30. ^ "Journalist Says Trump Foundation May Have Engaged In 'Self-Dealing'". NPR. September 28, 2016. Retrieved March 1, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  31. ^ Eder, Steve (October 3, 2016). "State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
  32. ^ Fahrenthold, David A. (November 22, 2016). "Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on 'self-dealing,' new filing to IRS shows". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
  33. ^ Farhi, Paul (April 10, 2017). "Washington Post's David Fahrenthold wins Pulitzer Prize for dogged reporting of Trump's philanthropy". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2017.
  34. ^ The Pulitzer Prizes (April 10, 2017). "2017 Pulitzer Prize: National Reporting". pulitzer.org. Retrieved April 10, 2017.
  35. ^ "Trump on Birtherism: Wrong, and Wrong". FactCheck.org. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  36. ^ "Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk". PolitiFact. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  37. ^ "Trump's electoral college victory not a 'massive landslide'". PolitiFact. December 11, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  38. ^ "Trump Landslide? Nope". FactCheck.org. November 29, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  39. ^ Seipel, Arnie (December 11, 2016). "FACT CHECK: Trump Falsely Claims A 'Massive Landslide Victory'". NPR. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  40. ^ "Pants on Fire for Trump claim that millions voted illegally". PolitiFact. November 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  41. ^ "Trump Claims Without Evidence that 3 to 5 Million Voted Illegally, Vows Investigation". Snopes. January 25, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  42. ^ "FALSE: Donald Trump Opposed the Iraq War from the Beginning". Snopes. September 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  43. ^ "Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War". PolitiFact. September 7, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  44. ^ "Donald Trump and the Iraq War". FactCheck.org. February 19, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  45. ^ Manchester, Julia (May 17, 2018). "Poll: Just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy". The Hill. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
  46. ^ Editorial Board (September 7, 2018). "Opinion - Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can't Be Trusted". The New York Times. Retrieved September 8, 2018.
  47. ^ Bobic, Igor (February 26, 2017). "The First 100 Lies: The Trump Team's Flurry Of Falsehoods". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 5, 2017.
  48. ^ Zakaria, Fareed (August 4, 2016). "The unbearable stench of Trump's B.S." The Washington Post. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
  49. ^ Kotler, Philip (March 4, 2017). "Killing the Truth: How Trump's Attack on the Free Press Endangers Democracy". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 24, 2017.
  50. ^ "Trump and the Truth. A series of [14] reported essays that examine the untruths that have fueled Donald Trump's Presidential campaign". The New Yorker. September 2, 2016. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  51. ^ Editorial Board (April 2, 2017). "Our Dishonest President". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
  52. ^ Burman, Tony (February 11, 2017). "With Trump, the media faces a yuuge challenge". Toronto Star. Retrieved February 12, 2017.
  53. ^ Prentice, Robert (February 10, 2017). "Being a liar doesn't mean you can't be a good president, but this is crazy". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved February 12, 2017.
  54. ^ PolitiFact. "Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter". PolitiFact. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  55. ^ PolitiFact (November 8, 2016). "Donald Trump's file". PolitiFact. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  56. ^ PolitiFact (December 21, 2015). "2015 Lie of the Year: Donald Trump's campaign misstatements". PolitiFact. Retrieved February 23, 2017.
  57. ^ Carroll, Lauren; Jacobson, Louis (March 23, 2017). "Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truth and falsehoods". PolitiFact. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  58. ^ Healy, Gabrielle (April 28, 2017). "7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office". PolitiFact. Retrieved April 29, 2017.
  59. ^ FactCheck.org (February 10, 2017). "Donald Trump archive". FactCheck.org. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  60. ^ Jackson, Brooks (April 29, 2017). "100 Days of Whoppers". FactCheck.org. Retrieved August 26, 2018.
  61. ^ Kiely, Eugene; Robertson, Lori; Farley, Robert; Gore, D'Angelo (December 20, 2017). "The Whoppers of 2017". FactCheck.org. Retrieved December 21, 2017.
  62. ^ Ye Hee Lee, Michelle; Kessler, Glenn; Shapiro, Leslie (February 21, 2017). "100 days of Trump claims". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
  63. ^ Kessler, Glenn; Lee, Michelle Ye Hee (June 1, 2017). "Fact-checking President Trump's claims on the Paris climate change deal". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
  64. ^ Kessler, Glenn; Rizzo, Salvador; Kelly, Meg (September 13, 2018). "President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  65. ^ Dale, Daniel (November 4, 2016). "Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things". Toronto Star. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  66. ^ Dale, Daniel (October 19, 2016). "One Month, 253 Trump Untruths". Politico Magazine. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  67. ^ Dale, Daniel (May 29, 2017). "Trump said just 6 false things in the last 10 days, his least dishonest stretch as president". Toronto Star. Retrieved May 29, 2017.
  68. ^ Yuhas, Alan (November 7, 2016). "How does Donald Trump lie? A fact checker's final guide". The Guardian. Retrieved February 28, 2017.
  69. ^ Yuhas, Alan (January 18, 2017). "Smoke and mirrors: how Trump manipulates the media and opponents". The Guardian. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
  70. ^ Parker, Ashley (June 19, 2018). "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 26, 2018.
  71. ^ Lewis, Michael (February 9, 2018). "Has Anyone Seen the President? Michael Lewis goes to Washington in search of Trump and winds up watching the State of the Union with Steve Bannon". Bloomberg News. Retrieved August 26, 2018.

User:MastCell/Quotes

User:MastCell/Quotes Awesome! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ALLEGED interference? SMH!!

How is it possible that we allow people to edit political articles who ignore the following facts? They should be topic banned.

Allied foreign intelligence agencies were spying on Russians, not on the Trump campaign, and they overheard Russians discussing how the Trump campaign was illegally working with them to sabotage Hillary & steal the election. That alarmed our allies, as it should. What else should they have done but report it to the FBI? They did the right thing.

These editors reveal their lack of competence here:

SMH! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Millian

We don't mention Sergei Millian (Sergei Kukut) at all, and yet he has been identified as the Dossier's Source D (and E), and many RS have discussed him and his proven and unproven roles in the Trump-Russia affairs and dossier (as Source D/E). Articles which mention him by name in connection with the dossier (after the release of the dossier) and/or just as Source D/E (both before and after release of the dossier) are fair game in this article.

RS reveal that his Trumpian tendency to hyperbole and self-promotion have rendered him an unwitting "loose lips" witness, similar to Papadopoulos, Giuliani, etc. Such people are very useful witnesses, much to Trump's chagrin. Later, when their revealings are seen as embarrassing, they try to deny, downplay, and even scrub the information, but history usually reveals they have exposed facts that should have been kept hidden, at least from the viewpoint of the Trump administration. They have thus placed themselves firmly in the center of Mueller's net for potential witnesses.

There is likely enough for an article about him, so I'm including a few articles from before release of the dossier.

Before release of dossier
  • September 8, 2016[1]
  • November 1, 2016[2]
After release of dossier
  • January 19, 2017[3]
  • January 24, 2017[4]
  • January 30, 2017[5]
  • March 29, 2017[6]
  • November 17, 2017[7]
  • January 19, 2018[8]
  • February 20, 2018[9]
  • September 8, 2018[12]
Not a RS for Wikipedia, but accurate and useful for research, linking to many RS
Sources

  1. ^ Zavadski, Katie; Mak, Tim (September 8, 2016). "Meet The Man Who Is Spinning For Donald Trump In Russia". The Daily Beast. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  2. ^ Belton, Catherine (November 1, 2016). "The shadowy Russian émigré touting Trump". Financial Times. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  3. ^ Corn, David (January 19, 2017). "Investigators on the Trump-Russia Beat Should Talk to This Man". Mother Jones. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  4. ^ Maremont, Mark (January 24, 2017). "Key Claims in Trump Dossier Said to Come From Head of Russian-American Business Group". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  5. ^ Ross, Brian; Mosk, Matthew (January 30, 2017). "US-Russian Businessman Said to be Source of Key Trump Dossier Claims". ABC News. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  6. ^ Helderman, Rosalind S.; Hamburger, Tom (March 29, 2017). "Who is 'Source D'? The man said to be behind the Trump-Russia dossier's most salacious claim". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  7. ^ Bertrand, Natasha (November 17, 2017). "Kushner received emails from Sergei Millian — an alleged dossier source who was in touch with George Papadopoulos". Business Insider. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  8. ^ Bertrand, Natasha (January 19, 2018). "Fusion GPS testimony brings alleged dossier source Sergei Millian back into the spotlight". Business Insider. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  9. ^ Mosk, Matthew (February 20, 2018). "Congress's Trump-Russia investigators hunt for mystery man". ABC News. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  10. ^ Prokop, Andrew (April 15, 2018). "Everything you wanted to know about the unverified Trump "pee tape" claim but were too embarrassed to ask". Vox. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  11. ^ Mosk, Matthew; Santucci, John (August 28, 2018). "Mysterious 'key figure' in Russia probe sought Trump team contacts". ABC News. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  12. ^ Kwong, Jessica (September 8, 2018). "Donald Trump Had 'Tricks Up His Sleeve' to Win Presidential Election, Alleged Steele Dossier Source Said". Newsweek.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I 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)[reply]

I've heard nothing (don't even know where the grapevine is), but I'll add my condolences. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. It's much appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You did nothing wrong--I was being overly sensitive. BR, I want you to know that some of us really do appreciate what you have done to keep WP's political articles honest and unbiased for the past two years. I watch over certain articles, MT's for one, but you have been down in the trenches fighting the battle for all this time while I have stayed on the sidelines working on less difficult articles. In fact someone recently gave me a brownie for one and upped it to "a nice glass of whiskey" when I complained about how meager just a brownie was. OK, just hang in there while I go shopping for some fine whiskey...or perhaps there is something else or a special brand you prefer??? Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All of the above sounds good. Would that brownie have any "herb" in it? After 15 years here, that would be nice. (Actually, I haven't touched pot since 1973.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fortunately that issue was handled and I seem to be in the clear. It's a very different type of issue. I'll explain by email. Thanks so much for your concern. You have a good heart. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP edit of Snopes

Regarding 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)[reply]

Thank you, but how?

Not sure how to say "thank you" for your impressive work at List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations? Template:Trump Barnstar has, well, Trump on it. If you you like tea (or coffee), or maybe something with ethanol? Wiki-snacks? Or maybe Template:Curious cat, or even something less dignified and muckraker-ish (Hopefully you don't find it offensive, but as intended):

Cool Cat Award: I know the evidence is in here somewhere.

X1\ (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! We have two dogs and one cat. The latter is missing in the Camp Fire (2018). We hope he survived and will be reunited with us soon. Life's a bit of a mess right now, but we're alive. Cats are one of those things that make life more special. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit! I am glad to hear the rest of you are together. Cats are semi-wild, really they domesticated us. They are smart (except for string and laser pointers), so if your cat wants to re-domesticate you, they'll show-up. Again, I am so sorry to hear of your intense challenges. Thank you for continuing to edit here. X1\ (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editing here preserves my sanity. I just don't have as much time right now. Things will return to normal at some point in the distant future. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw you got busy a couple of days ago. Take care. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Being homeless is a busy situation. Time flies with seeking aid, meeting appointments, and waiting in long, long lines. If this were a normal "lost their home in a fire" situation, we'd be able to buy another home quickly and get on with our lives. In this area there is absolutely nothing available. Dumping 45,000 plus people, within a few hours, into a city of 90,000, just doesn't work. Every single rental, home, and storage container was immediately taken, with most people left without proper shelter. Many have left the area to stay with family elsewhere, but many are forced by other circumstances to stay in the area. We are among those. It's more difficult for us. We're safe, warm, and okay for now. This nightmare will end someday. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello BullRangifer,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 08:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History and Charges

Hi. 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)[reply]

What you left in the section "Murders of Tupac Shakur" is totally unacceptable. It makes no sense and is unsourced. Actually look at it.
You deleted very public history. Millions of people know about it. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, notable accusations, including false ones, must be described, and denials (per my change to that policy) must also be mentioned. When accusations are so publicly known, their resolution is important to document, and the dropping of charges, clearing, declarations of innocence, etc. are just as important, maybe more so, than the convictions of guilt.
Yes, due weight applies, and sometimes some paring is in order, but you have trashed the hard work of numerous editors and deleted many RS. Follow WP:PRESERVE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We document the good and the bad. We document all aspects of the roller coaster ride, from start to finish. Yes, some of it can be summarized better, but get a consensus for such drastic changes. If your arguments are reasonable, other editors will welcome skillful reductions of fluff. Use the talk pages to show how a "before and after" actually looks, then get consensus for your proposed "after" version(s).
Right now you look more like a rogue, solo-editing, blind butcher than a skilled surgeon who works collaboratively and through consensus. You no doubt have thought about your edits and know exactly why you're doing it, but others need to be involved and understand your process. They are not obligated to accept it all on faith. Exercise caution when deleting properly sourced content. Look at it as the property of someone else, so remove or alter it gently and wisely. Of course it doesn't "belong" to anyone, but it represents the good faith hard work of other editors, so show some respect. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Where does Wikipedia allow unsubstantiated claims? And in a BLP?" Very specifically in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which ignores privacy. Public figures get little protection, unlike private persons, who are treated much more daintily.
These principles are also found in libel laws. Public persons can be libeled nearly at will in the USA, and they can rarely succeed in defending themselves in court, if the person making the injurious claims believes them to be true. Even worse is claims made on the internet. A specific law was made for that which protects anyone who republishes the libelous statements, even if they know them to be libelous. Only the originator of the false statements can be sued, and then still with difficulty. (See Barrett v. Rosenthal for more about that. It's an unfortunate ruling, IMO.) Many public persons just ignore the matter, and Presidents NEVER sue for libel (well, rightful presidents...IOW not Trump).
If the conditions mentioned at PUBLICFIGURE are fulfilled, then the claims, charges, rumors, libelous statements, whatever, should be documented here, but then your other words come into play (contextualize, write conservatively, attribute, etc.). Unfortunately for Suge Knight, his privacy is not respected, unlike non-public persons. If multiple RS have made the claims, then we are supposed to document them. That is from BLP. We are uncensored in many ways. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm still not sure if/how the notifier works, but I've written to you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

Joe was charged with Foo.


After conviction, reflexively change to:

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)[reply]

Looks like our collab isn't working well. How many will you harm by subverting BLP principles? Let's go to Wikipedia court! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop treating this disagreement like a battlefield. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start responding to specific concerns. Mcfnord (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's The Truth

Re: [1]

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)[reply]

I agree. We go by verifiability, not truth, but with this subject, we're dealing with verifiable, RS, documentation of falsehoods debunked by the facts, and that produces the hard data statistics which we get from fact checkers. So yes, I understand what you're saying, and it's certainly something to keep in mind, but I'm not fighting for "the truth", but for our daring to properly use the abundant verifiable documentation of his falsehoods. We have been far too reticent to use them to actually state that Trump "lies". We've even created ad hoc, non-policy-based, special exceptions for Trump, rules we haven't used for other presidents, to avoid using the words "lie" and"liar", even though RS were using them. That's completely non-NPOV editorial behavior. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing fringe Trump editors, who don't follow RS, to trump our practices in their efforts to protect him. That's simply BS. We are not Trumpipedia. We are not Alternative Facts Central. Chuck Todd was right: Trump's alternative facts are indeed falsehoods.
The "misleading" statements are obviously a bit of a gray area, but like the outright lies and falsehoods, we stick to the RS and their choice of wording, whether it's falsehoods, lies, liar, misleading, exaggeration, gaslighting, etc. The days of refusing to call Trump a "liar" are over. If he should and can know better, then we don't care if he actually does know. We don't care about determining his motives anymore, since his main motive is to do whatever, no matter how dishonest, to deceive in order to win. That's all he cares about. Truth is never a factor in his thinking. If he repeats a lie again and again, then we call him a liar, and that's what he does all the time. Fact checkers even created a new category because of him (and he's the only one who inhabits that region, as normal liars don't go there), the Bottomless Pinocchio. Wow! That's reserved for someone who has zero credibility, no moral compass, "no external reference points" (Comey's description), and no respect for truth.
BTW, I want to thank you again for your help in the situation we're in. You have no idea how much that means. Things are starting to look up. There is hope ahead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dossier

Hi, 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?

P.S. Oh, I found it: it's in sandbox 5, right? Where we can see that it would add another 30 kb if added to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you got my ping, I assume. Please read the whole thing before you start. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think we need to keep something in mind when comparing article size. Trump has a million subarticles, whereas this is just one article to cover a very notable subject that's still mentioned every single day. It is the key and roadmap for the whole Russia investigation. Just keep that in mind. It's very important. Also try to save the references. Such BLP sensitive stuff must have multiple sources, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Otherwise, simplifying is often welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annual DS alert refresh - American politics

This 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!

―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valjean&oldid=880002958"