User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

A citation template I like to use.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Talk page negotiation table

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

-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR

Personal stash/sandbox

Personal stash/sandbox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Main article: Useful idiot Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, says that "Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, says Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow". We have really never seen anything like this. Former acting CIA director Michael Morell says that Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation. I'd prefer another term drawn from the arcana of the Soviet era: polezni durak. That's the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited. That's a pretty harsh term, and Trump supporters will no doubt be offended. But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation of all this that I can come up with right now. -- General Michael Hayden This quote is especially interesting because it's Michael Hayden who quotes Michael Morell and then offers his own preference. Both top intelligence men share secret knowledge about Trump's relationship to Russia. Hayden considers the descriptions rather "harsh", but also "benign" under the circumstances. They know far more than we do and that the reality about Trump is much worse than their descriptions. It's not often one finds such a unique example of contemporary usage of the term "useful fool". If one tried to create an anonymized example of a classic use of the term for use in the Useful idiot article, one could not create a better example than this one. It uses the concept in two different ways; it's coming from two top intelligence officials; and it's about the most notable example in modern times. No wise or informed world leader would allow themselves to get into this situation, but it's happening right now. This is both quotes from their original sources: Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, described Trump as a "useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited." Here's a joke about the Trump Tower meeting: "A lawyer, a spy, a money launderer, and a mob boss walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, 'you must be here to talk about adoption'." MelanieN, I thought you'd appreciate this. Those men know what they're talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Finds by MelanieN Some more recent citations, based on his actions as president: Foreign policy; Steve Schmidt quoted at MSNBC; opinion piece at WaPo, quoting Madeline Albright and former FBI agent Clinton Watts. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Newsweek in December 2017: Putin’s “pawn” or “puppet”. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Her finds Is Trump Russia’s Useful Idiot, or Has He Been Irreparably Compromised? Foreign policy Russia's mark: A dangerous fool for a president "Clinton Watts, a former FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, earlier this year explained: Russian influence of Trump most likely falls into the category of what Madeleine Albright called a “Useful Idiot” – a “useful fool” – an enthusiast for Putin supportive of any issue or stance that feeds his ego and brings victory....As a “useful idiot,” Trump not only benefited from this influence effort, but he urged Russia to find Hilary Clinton’s missing emails...What’s more, the Kremlin now has useful idiots in the persons of Fox News hosts, right-wing American bloggers, talk show hosts and Stephen K. Bannon." Putin's Man in the White House? Real Trump Russia Scandal is Not Mere Collusion, U.S. Counterspies Say, Newsweek "... a far more grim consensus is developing in the topmost circles of the U.S. national security establishment: The president has become a pawn of America’s adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin." "James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, virtually called Trump a Putin puppet. The Russian president, Clapper noted, is a former KGB “case officer,” or spy recruiter, who “knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president. That’s the appearance to me.” “POTUS is a [spy] handlers’ dream,” he may be the ultimate unwitting asset of Russia.” “Everyone continues to dance around a clear assessment of what’s going on,” says Glenn Carle,...“My assessment,” he tells Newsweek, “is that Trump is actually working directly for the Russians.” Is Trump Russia’s Manchurian Candidate? No. Here's Why GOP Strategist: Putin looking at Trump as a "useful idiot", Steve Schmidt, MSNBC video References BLP about Public figures BLP about Public figures The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. POLICY: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. EMPHASIS ADDED: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. A few things to note about this: There is a difference between how we handle public figures and relatively unknown persons. Wikipedia follows normal practice in real life, especially libel laws, where public persons are less protected than others. In the USA, a public person can rarely win a libel lawsuit; the bar to overwhelm the First amendment is set very high. Added to that is the unfortunate fact that Barrett v. Rosenthal protects the deliberate online repetition (not the original creation) of known libelous information found on the internet: a "user of interactive computer services" is "immune from liability [certain conditions follow]". The internet is the Wild West, where a law actually protects the spreading of proven lies. This is sad, and we do not participate in the spreading of lies, unless multiple RS have documented it. That's where we are forced to get involved, but here we also include more details and denials, and we label them as "allegations" until proven true. If the conditions are met (noteworthy, relevant, and well documented), "it belongs in the article". "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The subject has a COI and has no right to have it removed from Wikipedia or to stop us from covering it. By being a public person, they have relinquished the right to privacy, even of negative information. The WMF legal department will rarely side with such attempts where editors are properly following this policy. Allegations must be labeled "allegation". Important. If they have denied the allegation, their denial must be included. Important. Many editors cite BLP, and even WP:PUBLIFIGURE, as if it means that negative and/or unproven information should not be included. No, that's not the way it works. That would be censorship, and that would violate NPOV. Just treat the allegation(s) sensitively, and neutrally document what multiple RS say. Cambridge Analytica and Project Alamo Cambridge Analytica and Project Alamo The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Before you study this subject, you MUST see this short BBC video (4:41 min.). Prepare to have your mind blown. This is not a conspiracy theory. At the end of the sources is a search on the subject. Project Alamo was the digital team behind the Trump campaign. Kushner was in charge of digital operations: BBC Video. Tweeted Aug. 13, 2017. Project Alamo: Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, Google, and YouTube worked hand-in-hand with the Trump campaign. Then read this: Why the Trump Machine Is Built to Last Beyond the Election. October 27, 2016 They started with bragging at their efficiency, success, and collaboration with Facebook, et al. The Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica (CA), Facebook, Google, and YouTube were working very closely together all along. I was dumbfounded at the time with how open they were about it, and wondered how that could be legal. According to recent sources (below), their tune has changed to denials and a cover-up, but those historical sources show they knew and colluded together, and CA is now under criminal investigation. Both CA and FB are pointing fingers at each other, and this paints a pretty clear picture of damage control and cover-up (using a false "data breach" story). That is the background one must understand before reading sources. Then it all makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC) General sources about Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, and the Trump campaign The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. January 28, 2017. The Data That Turned the World Upside Down March 30 2017. Facebook Failed to Protect 30 Million Users From Having Their Data Harvested by Trump Campaign Affiliate July 14, 2017. Trump campaign's digital director agrees to meet with House Intel Committee October 16, 2017. Cambridge Analytica, the shady data firm that might be a key Trump-Russia link, explained March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvested data from millions of unsuspecting Facebook users March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica pushes back on Facebook's allegations as top Senate Democrat blasts 'Wild West' March 17, 2018. Facebook knew of illicit user profile harvesting for 2 years, never acted March 17, 2018. Facebook suspends Cambridge Analytica, which worked for Trump campaign March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica and the Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica: links to Moscow oil firm and St Petersburg university March 17, 2018. Staff claim Cambridge Analytica ignored US ban on foreigners working on elections March 17, 2018. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvest more than 50 million Facebook profiles in 2014, but don't call it a data breach March 18, 2018. Mass. AG to investigate Facebook, Cambridge Analytica March 18, 2018. Self-described whistleblower suspended by Facebook after Cambridge Analytica reports March 18, 2018. 'I made Steve Bannon's psychological warfare tool': meet the data war whistleblower March 18, 2018. Facebook employs psychologist whose firm sold data to Cambridge Analytica March 18, 2018. Breach leaves Facebook users wondering: how safe is my data? March 18, 2018. What is Cambridge Analytica? The firm at the centre of Facebook's data breach March 18, 2018. Data scandal is huge blow for Facebook – and efforts to study its impact on society March 18, 2018. Democrats call on Cambridge Analytica head to testify again before Congress March 18, 2018. Pressure mounts on Cambridge Analytica and Facebook over data scandal Search: "cambridge analytica" facebook trump (Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2017) Project Alamo References POV forks POV forks The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Main page: Wikipedia:Content forking Point of view (POV) forks In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory. The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead). New content sandbox. Needs work. We aren't allowed to create, or use, articles as WP:POVFORKs. Relevant content belongs in the relevant articles, and not be banished to "somewhere else, just as long as it's not here". That's the essence of the attitude we want to eliminate, and why we don't allow POV forks. Dossier history split...sandbox Dossier history split...sandbox The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Version 1 == History == There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS. The first phase was sponsored by Republicans, and the second phase sponsored by Democrats. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier. === Research sponsored by Republicans === The first phase of research was sponsored by Republicans. In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier." === Research sponsored by Democrats produces dossier === The second phase of research was sponsored by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign and produced the Steele dossier. In April 2016, Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice, hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias was the attorney of record for the DNC and Clinton campaign. ... (Rest is totally unchanged.) References The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. References Sandbox == History == There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS, but with completely separate funders. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier. === Research funded by conservative website === In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier." === Research funded by Democrats produces dossier === The second phase of research was funded through Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice. In April 2016, Elias hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias, as the attorney of record for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign, was acting on their behalf. ... (Rest is totally unchanged.) References The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. References References Comey interview Comey interview The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The full transcript of James Comey's five-hour long interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Only one hour was shown on April 15, 2016: Transcript: James Comey's interview with ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, April 15, 2018. "ABC News' chief anchor George Stephanopoulos' interviewed former FBI director James Comey for a special edition of "20/20" that aired on Sunday, April 15, 2018 ahead of the release of Comey's book, A Higher Loyalty. The following is the transcript of the interview:" Notable quotes (very abbreviated to avoid copyvio) JAMES COMEY: I worry that the norms at the center of this country--... Most importantly, the truth. ... if we lose tethering of our leaders to that truth, what are we? And so I started to worry. Actually, the foundation of this country is in jeopardy when we stop measuring our leaders against that central value of the truth. JAMES COMEY: I honestly never thought this words would come out of my mouth, but I don't know whether the-- the-- current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It's possible, but I don't know. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you thinking, "President Trump's a liar?" JAMES COMEY: Yes, ... he is someone who is-- for whom the truth is not a high value. And-- and obviously, there were examples of that in the dinner. ...But yes, that he is-- that sometimes he's lying in ways that are obvious, sometimes he's saying things that we may not know are true or false and then there's a spectrum in between. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You say the president didn't laugh. JAMES COMEY: Yeah, not at all. ... I've never seen him laugh. Not in public, not in private. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You write that President Trump is unethical, untethered to the truth. Is Donald Trump unfit to be president? JAMES COMEY: Yes. ... I don't think he's medically unfit to be president. I think he's morally unfit to be president. A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they're pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it, that person's not fit to be president of the United States, on moral grounds. And that's not a policy statement.... our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country. The most important being truth. This president is not able to do that. He is morally unfit to be president. The 70 must-see lines in James Comey's ABC interview, CNN References Lying press#United States See also: Mainstream media § Alternative terms The term Lügenpresse came into use during the 2016 US presidential election cycle under the moniker of fake news, first largely online in reference to inaccurate or false reporting on social media. The term fake news was later used by the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. At October 2016 political rallies in the US, Trump supporters shouted the word at reporters in the "press pen". Trump himself often referred to the assembled press at his rallies as "the most dishonest people" and "unbelievable liars". American alt-right white nationalist Richard Spencer used the term in an NPI meeting in Washington, D.C. after Trump's victory in the election. In 2017, Trump himself labeled news sources such as the "failing" New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, and CNN, as "fake news" and "the enemy of the American people". The term fake news, itself a variation on "Lying Press," has gained particular commonplace usage during the Presidency of Donald Trump. Merge this into current content above Trump and his followers have often attacked the press, calling them "corrupt", "outright liars", and "the deceitful dishonest media." During the 2016 presidential campaign, the press at Trump's rallies was ridiculed, and sometimes the old Nazi slur Lügenpresse, German for "lying press", was used to attack them. In 2017, Trump labeled The New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, and CNN as "the fake news media" and "the enemy of the American people." References This is the "Trump exemption" in practice ....followed by an appeal. "Do the right thing"? Forget it here. That is not allowed. Practice on Trump articles and talk pages show a clear use of the Wikipedia:Trump exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by an editor with this comment, which contains a redirect to WP:IAR. It was a clear admission that, when dealing with Trump, it was allowable to ignore all PAG. Censorship is allowed in service of his thin skin. It appears that Trumpipedia is part of Wikipedia, with its own rules. Drmies recognizes that a section (in each biography article) on the subject of Obama's and Trump's relationship to truth and facts would be radically different because they have radically different understandings and practice, and that's the picture painted by RS. Whether one agrees with Obama or not, he at least recognizes that truth is important, whereas Trump has never given it the time of day. He is the most extreme example of affluenza. I have researched the subject and it's fascinating. Right now, even a few sentences in a short paragraph in any Trump article is pretty much forbidden. I have enough (over 300 very RS) for a rather long article about Trump, but I know that such an article would never be allowed. His supporters here would successfully game the system through wikilawyering, exploiting the DS requirement for a consensus to restore contested content, RfCs, and AfDs. Such an article would be labeled an "attack page", even though it's only a documentation of what RS say, and that is what's supposed to dictate our content. The "Trump exemption" (endless wikilawyering) has become a policy here, used successfully to violate numerous policies. The consensus among RS is that Trump is a "serial liar" in a class by himself, far beyond anything they've ever encountered before. It's a very well-documented character flaw, not just opinions, and yet the dominant view here is that Trump should be given a much longer rope than anyone else and be protected from what RS say. He has that much power here. That's the way it is, and too many admins support that view. These articles should be monitored by numerous admins who are willing to promptly issue DS warnings and topic bans for such obstruction. An appeal: Are there any editors here who will prove me wrong and just follow policy? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts

Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a very small portion of what's available on Trump's notorious relationship to truth. There is enough material for a very large article. Every single day provides new material. There are plenty of opinions about the subject, but then there are the facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Lies are easily fact checked, and what fact checkers say should not be confused with opinions. As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, 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. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." 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." 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." Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously. 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. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." 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." 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". Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He lies about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning. 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." David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. 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. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada. Fact checkers 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; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". PolitiFact Donald Trump's file Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter PolitiFact designated Trump's many campaign misstatements as their "2015 Lie of the Year". Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods 7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office FactCheck Donald Trump archive Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president. The Whoppers of 2017, President Trump monopolizes our list of the year’s worst falsehoods and bogus claims. The Washington Post President Trump has made 2,436 false or misleading claims so far. Toronto Star Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things. The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods. Trump, his supporters, and fake news From: Fake news A 2018 study at Oxford University found that Trump's supporters consumed the "largest volume of 'junk news' on Facebook and Twitter": "On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share," the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, "extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together." A 2018 study by researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter has examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. The findings showed that Trump supporters and older Americans (over 60) were far more likely to consume fake news than Clinton supporters. Those most likely to visit fake news websites were the 10% of Americans who consumed the most conservative information. There was a very large difference (800%) in the consumption of fake news stories as related to total news consumption between Trump supporters (6.2%) and Clinton supporters (0.8%). The study also showed that fake pro-Trump and fake pro-Clinton news stories were read by their supporters, but with a significant difference: Trump supporters consumed far more (40%) than Clinton supporters (15%). Facebook was by far the key "gateway" website where these fake stories were spread, and which led people to then go to the fake news websites. Fact checks of fake news were rarely seen by consumers, with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check. Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (Bolding added) NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing." NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." References References

Opinion on talk pages

Opinion on talk pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, BR. Factchecker went about it wrong, but he had a valid point. That whole "Why didn’t Clinton use it?" section was OR and I have hatted it. I also extended the hat over an additional portion of your "Gobbledygook" rant, about the Trumpies being surprised when Putin went beyond what they thought was his mandate. We are all entitled to our opinions, but please try not to FORUM on the article talk page. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Seriously? What part of the "Why didn't Clinton..." section is OR? Did you read every word I wrote? Okay, some are humor challenged, so hat the Borowitz part, but not the very serious question. This is especially ironic coming from that "walls of forum" editor who believes conspiracy theories. Please tweak your hatting. AGF. It's a valid enquiry. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC) I read it as a rhetorical question - a way of making the point that the Clintonites obviously didn't have the information since they didn't use it. That certainly seems to be the point you are making in the first two paragraphs. And the request for sourcing I also read as rhetorical, since if any hint of actual evidence had ever been found, the Republicans would be all over it. But you felt it was a genuine request for information? How about this: I'll unhat it, if you will rephrase the section title and the wording so that they don't sound argumentative. As in "Can anyone find any reports of..." Of course, you know and I know there are no such reports, so the question is still basically rhetorical. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Hmmm....hadn't thought of that possible interpretation. Yes, I doubt there are any such RS, but I want to give the benefit of the doubt to those who wonder. If they can find such sources, we might be able to use them. They're always demanding a way to get their POV in the article. Here's a chance. Unfortunately I can't do much extensive changing on my phone. It's a pain, but maybe this evening. It's a matter of AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Later is fine. I have taken the hat down except for the joke. --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Thanks. Now is anyone going to hat Factchecker's walls of aggressive and accusatory forum? Their approach is not conducive to goodwill and collaboration. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Yeah. BR has more improvement in his little pinky than most editors have in their ... SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC) I really tried to work with Factchecker. But it's like pulling teeth to get anything specific out of him - it's all generalities. And when I finally got a suggestion of one specific thing to look at, and my response was everything he could have desired, his reaction was totally negative. Just general complaints (personal this time) and refusals to name any additional specifics we can talk about. I'm done trying to work with him. And somebody else is going to have to deal with his walls of FORUM-spouting. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC) MelanieN, I understand. Somewhere in that wall of aggressive, confrontational, and uncivil NOTAFORUM stuff are some items which could be dealt with, but if he's going to continue to be so negative, accusatory, and completely not AGF, then the response is going to be less than enthusiastic. There can be no collaboration with someone who talks down to us and only berates. You(?) called it "rude". That was a very gentle understatement. There's also the failure to understand several policies, hence some of the unrealistic demands. But, largely, it's not so much what he's trying to do, but how it's done. Editors who have the same POV can produce good content, but it's better when those who have opposing POV are involved. Each brings many things to the negotiating table which are required for a better article. It would be better if another editor filtered and washed their concerns and started afresh with a civil, measured, and specific attempt to deal with some of those concerns a little bit at a time. As has been quite evident on the article and the previous List article, those editors who are willing to work with me in a civil way, clearly expressing their concerns in a short and specific manner, well, they have found a good, pleasant, reciprocal, compromising, and collaborative working environment, and they have always seen some of their concerns result in needed changes, some of which I would not have noticed without them. That's been my experience with such editors, several of whom hold POV diametrically opposite to mine. I can work with such people. But this editor? How can it be done? Why should it be done? I don't have a single masochistic gene in my body! They must learn that they can't force people to respect them, and there needs to be some form of mutual respect. I'm not going to work with someone who treats me badly. Their attitude spreads poison ahead of them, and they poison the well on themselves. Sad. They have strained the DS civility requirement beyond the snapping point repeatedly, with nothing happening, not even a warning (that I know of). The result is a chilling effect and sense of unfairness. I'm hesitant to get involved, but for their own sake I will point out some places where they've really got it backwards. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC) He hasn't exactly been uncivil as Wikipedia understands it. His name calling is directed at Wikipedia rather than any individual. But he has been totally obstructionist, uncooperative, unwilling to work together. For that reason my approach to him from now on is going to be to ignore him. I think we could all do that. Don't respond to him; talk around him. I gave it one shot - I looked at a source he had criticized, agreed with his criticism, started the process of removing the source, totally gave him what he wanted. In return I got kicked in the teeth. I thought that might encourage him to see, hey, collaboration works. Clearly no such message was received. No more for me. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC) MelanieN, I just wrote a message on your talk page before I saw this. His reasoning is specious, so we shouldn't give in so easily. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC) My reaction was not based on his reasoning; I wasn't "giving in". It was based on the fact that I thought the complaint was valid. The source is NOT one you would think of as a reliable source for straight news. I'm sure their reports about the dossier's allegations were taken directly from the dossier and thus as reliable as anyone else's. Still, we can get the same information from more mainstream sources and that would be better. (think Good Article) And the subsection is one I had earlier suggested for deletion. I may take a look at some of the other sources he identified; if I find them improper I will take action - but not because of anything he said. He is just the person who called them to my attention - back when I was still paying attention to him. --MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC) MelanieN, in that section it isn't being used "for straight news", but for opinion. The author is a political editor. That's his specialty. As you know, practically any source can be considered a RS, all depending on what it is being used for. It's a joke, but it's also true that Playboy does contain some excellent articles by notable people. Rolling Stone also has excellent, in depth, political articles. Vanity Fair as well, and so does Paste. Business Insider has quite a bit of in depth political coverage, from a very neutral position. So one must look at the article itself, and then look at how it's being used. The Paste article is being used as secondary RS documentation for the existence of certain allegations, together with other RS. It's also used for the opinion, a clearly expressed one at that. Removing this removes nearly any opinion of this type. We are sadly negligent in this department. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

False and misleading statements

As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, 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. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."

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."

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."

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

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. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

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." She compared the research on lying with his falsehoods, finding that his differ from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many "self-serving lies" as "kind lies", whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's falsehoods are "cruel lies", while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's falsehoods are "kind lies", while it's 25% for others. His falsehoods often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".

Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He tells falsehoods about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning.

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."

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

In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.

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; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

Sources

Fact checkers

PolitiFact

• Donald Trump's file

• Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter

• PolitiFact designated Trump's many campaign misstatements as their "2015 Lie of the Year".

• Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods

• 7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office

FactCheck

• Donald Trump archive

• Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president.

• The Whoppers of 2017, President Trump monopolizes our list of the year’s worst falsehoods and bogus claims.

The Washington Post

• President Trump has made 2,436 false or misleading claims so far.

Toronto Star

• Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things. 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.

Sources

Not Waybacking?

You removed https://web.archive.org/web/20180413230951/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html from a citation, stating "Let's not adopt the disputed practice of bloating with archiveURL while still live". I was not aware that this was a disputed practice, it simply seems like good form to archive content that may be removed or redirected. Could you kindly let me know where I can read about this dispute, and what the consensus is on archiving content? PvOberstein (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

PvOberstein, that's a fair question, and an edit summary is a poor substitute for more in depth discussion, so thanks for asking. You deserve a better answer. Right now, our non-policy, non-guideline page for the subject is here: Wikipedia:Link rot. It doesn't seem to deal with this issue, at least my quick scan of the page didn't spot it.

I've run into this issue several times and editors have differing opinions, sometimes deleting every single one from the article, so it's a disputed practice. An editor who runs a bot recently got flack for not setting the bot to only add archive.org links to those links which were actually rated deadlink=yes. They added archive.org links to every single ref. They had only begun to use the bot and apologized. AFAIK, they were more careful in the future.

It creates a huge amount of bloat, and on small articles can easily double the page size, in some sense the same which happens on talk pages where some users have super fancy signatures where the code fills several lines.

I wonder how many extra servers Wikimedia has just to house all those fancy signatures? Are we talking about hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars, just for a social media function? Should good faith donations be used for this? While I understand the urge for personalization of signatures, Wikipedia is not a social media site, so I'd favor a requirement for basic signatures, with limited frills (IOW a maximum number of bytes), but that's a different subject.

Here's an example: [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]]

I've seen minor squabbles on talk pages about adding archive.org links (it only happens when they are added to live links), but I'm not sure what the actual consensus is, so I'm seeking information on that and will let you know. Pinging MelanieN. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

PvOberstein, I asked MelanieN and she has replied here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Source list, with refs

Main article: Michael Cohen (lawyer)

Feel free to add more sources to the bottom and I'll format the references. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sources: Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier, McClatchy

• Special counsel has evidence Michael Cohen traveled to Prague: McClatchy, Reuters

• Michael Cohen’s visiting Prague would be a huge development in the Russia investigation, The Washington Post

• Special counsel has evidence Michael Cohen travelled to Prague-McClatchy, The New York Times (duplication of Reuters)

• Mueller has evidence Michael Cohen traveled to Prague, report claims, The Guardian (duplication of Reuters)

• Why the question of whether Michael Cohen visited Prague is massively important for Donald Trump, Vox

• Mueller can prove Cohen made secret trip to Prague before the election: report, The Hill

• Michael Cohen Has Been Under Criminal Investigation for Months, Feds Reveal, The Daily Beast

• Trump Attorney Lied About Prague Trip, Mueller Investigation Reveals, as New Evidence Comes to Light, Newsweek

• Michael Cohen, Once the President’s Trusted Fixer, Emerges as His Greatest Liability, Mother Jones

• Mueller may have evidence corroborating a key dossier allegation about Michael Cohen and Russian collusion, Business Insider

Renewed denial

• Trump lawyer Michael Cohen denies traveling to Prague, CBS News

• Trump's personal lawyer denies report of Prague meeting with Russians during campaign, Politico

• Trump lawyer Cohen denies media report of Prague trip, Reuters

Sources

Prague

[Wow, what an edit notice...]

Re Prague, I'm thinking it's a bit too soon. Cohen is adamant that he's not been to Prague, and the available evidence seems to support it, barring that Cohen actually has two passports:

"Cohen said that during the time the report places him in Prague, he was actually with his son visiting USC and meeting with the baseball coach. A USC baseball source confirmed Tuesday night that Cohen and his son had visited USC on August 29th. Cohen said that he was in Los Angeles from the 23rd through the 29th of August, and that the rest of the month he was in New York. He said that his only trip to an EU country over the summer had been a vacation to Italy in July. In one instance, the dossier places the alleged Prague travel in "August/September 2016." Cohen said he was in New York for the entire month of September." Atlantic, 2017

I would give it a few days, as it's mostly speculation at this point, as in: it would be big if the McClatchy reports were true. Which it would be. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, two points:

1. I tend to agree that waiting would be good, and that was my first caution on the talk page, but someone else added it, and several have concurred that it was okay. I have let them do their thing. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the coverage is wide enough to justify inclusion as an allegation, as long as it's clear that it's an unproven allegation, and a denial accompanies the content. I think that's the case, but you're welcome to tighten up the language as necessary. I haven't really looked at the addition, just improved the ref format.

   We document everything here, including virtually every form of well-documented thing that can squeeze under the umbrella of "the sum total of human knowledge" (Jimbo), and that includes rumors, conspiracy theories, quackery, hoaxes, fraud, lies, fiction, dishonesty, etc, not just proven facts and honesty. Documenting Trump covers the whole gamut, with hardly any of the last item.

2. Cohen's denial is like Swiss cheese. The initial denial has holes in it and used non-evidence. He isn't known for honesty, and like Trump, is trained to deny everything to the bitter end. It's a fact that Cohen and others in the Trump orbit fly on private jets (sometimes owned by Russian oligarchs) directly from private US airfields to destinations in Europe, eastern Europe, and Russia, without hardly a trace, like ghosts. They have that kind of money and power. Even if he did use regular commercial jets to fly to Germany and travel from there, it's not inconceivable that he did it very quietly. If he did that, then Mueller likely has the evidence, and that may be what's behind this latest allegation. Cohen is experienced at being sneaky, so I don't give his denials much credence, but he may have met his match in Mueller and his team.

   The passport image denial is worthless, and the timing denial as well, as he denied being in Europe in a certain narrow time period (claimed to have been in LA with his son), but the dossier alleges a much broader time period when he could have been in Europe, and his unconfirmed alibi doesn't cover that full time period. At least one of the sources mentions that investigators don't totally believe his alibi. His word is not an alibi. If he flew a private jet, he could have been gone a couple days without anyone here knowing the better. I'm inclined to believe he flew commercial, and Mueller has the record of entry into Germany.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting curiouser and curiouser! That's why I posted here rather than at the Talk page, so that it does not come across too much like a forum. I saw this piece where Buzzfeed photographed the insides of Cohen's passport: May 2017. It would be fascinating when it all comes out in the end (I hope). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I just added more to my comment above. Yes, I share that feeling. We live in exciting times, a bit too exciting. To think that we are experiencing the possible end of democracy in America, with Obama being the last legitimately elected president for a long time. It's scary.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm American, but have lived in Europe most of my adult life, and my passport is like his. I've been in myriad countries without a trace in my passport or elsewhere, and I'm not a spy. I remember when the Schengen Agreement was signed and a new day of free travel started in most of Europe. Suddenly we could just drive from one country to the next without stopping for passport control. Wow! Unfortunately organized crime and human trafficking have taken advantage of that situation. People like Cohen can also do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, this may interest you. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

An example of how people these rich people (and also criminals) can travel without any record is this example from when Trump traveled to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, the occasion of the alleged pee pee tape.

• Trump's Two Nights of Parties in Moscow Echo Years Later

"The flight records, which don’t include names of passengers, don’t show any subsequent international departures for either of Trump’s planes. Instead, Trump made the flight on a Bombardier Global 5000 private jet owned by Phil Ruffin, his partner in the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Las Vegas, according to the New York Times."

The flight is registered, but not the passengers. Without public exposure and social media exposure, these people could travel to places and return, without hardly anyone but a few trusted people knowing. This is an interesting article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Dossier

The Cohen material was reverted at the dossier article. To formalize the consensus, I posted a poll. Within minutes, three editors who have never edited the article before showed up to vote, all in the Oppose section. I just thought that was interesting.- MrX 🖋 17:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I found interesting about it, MrX, was your belief that I was the only one objecting to its inclusion. It appears to me that, based on all the DS vio warnings the same few editors have placed on TPs of other editors, that several editors who once participated at those articles have chosen the role of (talk page stalker) and, unfortunately, avoid editing content because of the oft unsavory working environment that is common at most political articles. It is much safer to limit contributions to the occasional survey or RfC. It could also be that by including my user name to the section title, it attracted more attention/participation than it would have otherwise. Controversial titles tend to do that, you know? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Unsupported supposition about editors being socks or whatever is rude, MrX. The whole point of posting a poll is to get feedback from others. Factchecker_atyourservice 05:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I appreciate your note about the oft unsavory work environment. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Competence is required essay

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Does the community agree with WP:CIR?
• Wikipedia:Competence is required

You're more experienced than I, so I thought you might be interested in taking a look at these edits [1].

It's long seemed to me that this essay, while dealing with an important issue, has never presented operational tests or standards that are real-life useful rather than provoking hurt feelings and mutual insults. On the other hand, this edit seems to me to have gone too far in removing context and background for the bare examples. Any thoughts? It would be good if this essay were developed into something that could be applied to editor behavior with clear tests and standards. This would not be an easy task, but on the other hand it would lessen the stupid "IDHT" accusations from CIR editors who can't understand why their views have never been accepted. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wouldn't be surprised if that all got reverted. There is a large discussion going on right now with CIR to change it from an essay to a supplement here. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Very competent of you. I had no idea. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an area where topic bans are very handy. Some editors are very competent in some areas, and not in others. Some are excellent at gnomish editing and can really improve formatting, grammar, spelling, and such things, but they never get the hang of vetting sources, so they should be topic banned from their favorite articles where they cause disruption. It might be pseudoscience, alternative medicine, or politics.

An editor who repeatedly fails to understand that sources like Natural News, Breitbart, and Daily Caller are not RS is incompetent. We may think that what a person believes in real life is none of our concern, but if they continue to use those sources in real life, they will continue to use muddled thinking, and it often spills over into their editing and talk page discussions because they refuse to accept and believe what RS say.

When that happens, a topic ban allows them to improve the encyclopedia on other subjects. Since most of their disruption is often on talk pages, a topic ban keeps them from muddling things and being a time sink. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice

Note --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Crap! I clicked the link and replied, thinking I was on this page. Well, here's my reply to you:

Indeed. That was my notification, and I have no intent to engage further. I have extended olive branches and gotten abuse. I'm finished with them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The squirrel

The squirrel is mother to many nuts. Trump seems to be the squirrel, at least around this website these days. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, by attacking honest journalism, the last bastion of free speech and the last defense of private citizens, he has succeeded in cutting a large minority off from RS which cover all news, including what he doesn't want his followers to know. The whole situation is nuts, but it's a tactic used by authoritarian dictators to gain mind control.

Pew Research Center studies many of these things, and their findings are disturbing. Conservatives get most of their news from very few sources, most of them unreliable, while liberals use many RS and avoid the most extreme left-wing sites. We see that here with some editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: if you honestly expect me to abide by your "banning" me from your talk page, you cannot go on repeating ad infinitum the same nonsensical personal attacks that I've already shown to be nonsensical. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Did I somehow offend you? No. Take up your dispute with Pew Research Center if you don't like their facts.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Now get off my page.

1. Stop pinging me.
2. Stop mentioning me.
3. Stop denigrating and attacking me.

Just get over it. You seem to have an obsession with putting me down and creating a hostile editing environment for me. I know we don't share political POV, but we should be able to edit collaboratively. That means the hostility has to stop. Do NOT try to reply to this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, they did reply, including restoring a comment I had deleted. They have made four edits to this page after knowing they were not supposed to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, if you delete this section they're complaining about then they won't have a leg to stand on if they direct a personal snipe at you again (assuming you keep away from them, too). SPECIFICO should know better than to fan the flames. Resist the temptation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I'm a bit confused. So Factchecker keeps on attacking me long after (in sense of edits, not years) I've ceased mentioning them in any negative manner or spoken to them. They repeatedly go against your pretty clear admonition to not post here, and do so just to insult me and make demands they have no right to make. They make snide remarks about me on other talk pages, while accusing me of making personal attacks when I haven't spoken about or to them. They keep mentioning my essay, which was not written about or to them, but since they self-identify with some of the traits and behaviors mentioned in relation to our policies, they decide to take it personally and try to censor my private essay and my talk page.

I hope you're not suggesting their behavior should be rewarded. Or do you mean something else? I really don't understand you. What's on my talk page, or in my personal essay, is none of their business if it doesn't mention them. They are literally trying to stifle the expression of views they don't like, even when it doesn't mention them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. You can either delete a section started off by an inappropriate comment by SPECIFICO and perhaps cool things off or you can leave things be. Either way, I don't expect you or Factchecker_atyourservice to post on each other's talk pages, save for the necessary administrative notes if things get that far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I think you (like the uninvited visitor here) are making entirely too much of my comment. BR and I are old colleagues on the politics articles. We both have generally cordial relations even with editors with whom we often disagree. Mr. Factchecker is entirely too prone to personalize just about everything he does on WP, from what I can see. But the comment I made to BR was not about him and he had no reason to claim otherwise or to bring you in here w/o context to further whatever grudge he's bearing. BR and I share an intermittent frustration relating to many issues and articles *the nuts* and it has nothing to do with Mr. Factchecker person. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec)... NeilN, thanks for clearing that up. It really is THIS thread you're talking about. Okay, will do, but I must make a few things clear:

1. This is my talk page and neither SPECIFICO's comment, nor my response, were aimed at any particular person, and were in no way improper. In no way was it a personal attack, contrary to the assertion above.
2. This move indeed rewards bad behavior and sets a very slippery slope precedent.
3. I have not deliberately posted on their talk page since your admonishment.
4. This is victim blaming if I ever saw it. I hope that I'm not the only one being singled out, because this is pretty one-sided, considering their actions were not in response to any misdeed of mine. That they interpret all things negative about Trump and those who defend him as a personal attack, well...I'm in good company and they have a problem. They have no right to take offense at a general comment which did not mention them, and they have no right to request I delete it.
5. I'm not deleting this because it's the right thing to do. It's not. I'm not sure if doing so violates any of our PAG, but it rewards breaking them.
6. I'm doing it because, if I'm in danger of erring, I'd rather err on the side of peacemaking. There can be no excuse for further very personal attacks, not that there was any excuse in the first place.

So after writing this, I'll archive the section, and I know you'll read it in the history. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)