User:Factchecker atyourservice/Argument with Collect

Sarah Palin BLP violation????

In what way does this remotely violate WP:BLP?:

Palin's high profile in the 2008 presidential campaign has fueled speculation of that Palin may run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and as of November 2008, there is an active "Draft Palin" movement. However, Palin has so far not expressed interest in seeking the presidency in 2012, telling CNN, "Right now I cannot even imagine running for national office in 2012."

It simply states that there are elements of the Republican Party that want her to run in 2012, and that she has presently stated she has no interest in that. All of this is non-controversial and cited from verifiable sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a conjecture which is contrary to what she has stated herself. Thus it fails under the "conjecture" pare of BLP. Sort of like saying "Some people say John Doe is considering running for Congress, but John Doe is denying it" -- all it is, is speculation. Even from CNN, speculation remains speculation. Collect (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[First evidence of a possible problem. "Thus it fails under the 'conjecture' part of BLP." Here Collect is speaking authoritatively and trying to convince another user that his edit has violated a core policy. But the policy he references does not prohibit conjecture in BLPs.]

I was just checking out your talk page to see if any comments had been posted about me, and I noticed that you were giving out some mistaken advice.

Conjecture is absolutely fine in a BLP, as per BLP policy/guidelines. Just wanted to make sure you understood that, so you can avoid making further erroneous claims in the future. You had made the same incorrect assertion at various points on the Palin talk page, and I corrected you, but I'm not sure the message got through. Best. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[My tactic : Remind Collect of a discussion we have previously had, without getting into details.][My tactic : Assert that Collect is wrong without making accusation of bad faith.]

"Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." As for seeking to intimidate anyone, it does not work. Facts are what belong in a BLP, not conjecture. Collect (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[Collect tactic : Present text of a Wikipedia policy as final proof that what he is saying is correct, without making any effort to explain how the policy text supports his position.][Collect tactic : Immediately accuse other editor of bad faith or personal attack (i.e. "seeking to intimidate").][Colect tactic : Assert a false and overly broad interpretation of a Wikipedia rule ("Facts are what belong in a BLP, not conjecture.") and then demand other users accept that interpretation as authoritative.]

This is really frustrating talking with you and having to explain every basic concept in every policy, over and over. Take a look at the policy you just quoted: "Remove any contentious material about living persons ... that is a conjectural interpretation of a source".

Referencing conjecture which directly appears in a source is not a conjectural interpretation of a source. Taking a source which includes no conjecture and then adding your own conjecture to it, or adding conjecture that is different from the conjecture that appears in the source is a conjectural interpretation of a source. That is original research. Conjecture which appears in a source is NOT.

Your repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated suggestion that conjecture, allegations, etc, do not belong in a BLP, is plainly contradicted by the very language of the BLP policies. You can assert your own novel interpretation all you like, but the fact is, you're wrong and your wrongness is spelled out in the actual letter of the BLP policy.

PS, This is about the tenth time I've explained this exact point to you. Could you PLEASE READ the policy carefully before making assertions about it to other editors? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[My tactic : Attempt to explain, in painstaking detail, why Collect's reading of the rule is substantially mistaken.][My tactic : Offer exasperated reminder of identical discussions we've had on the same subject.]

And the fact remains that your interpretation of the BLP rules about conjecture and mine differ. The conjecture which is barred is material which posits material other than current fact. BLPs are for facts about a person. Period. Opinions? Sometimes, but only clearly identified as opinion. Crystal ball gazing? Not. WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. " "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen." Is this more clear now? Material which is not set in the future is not really BLP material, else we would have "what if?" scattered throughout all of WP. As for your ungracious and tendentious lecturing, it is ill-suited to WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[Collect tactic : "It's just a difference of opinion. My interpretation of the rules is just as valid as yours." Use of this tactic tends to deny that there is anything objective at all about Wiki policies that two editors could agree upon, based on the plain language.][Collect tactic : Switch to a new basis for a new argument, changing the subject without admitting that the original argument was wrong.][Collect tactic again: Attack the editor rather than his comments.]

The comments about WP:Crystal need to be directed at the person who wanted to add material about Palin's future political prospects. Your comments about your blatantly contradictory opinion about what you think the BLP guidelines say -- which, in point of provable fact, they do not say -- are simply not applicable. If someone sets a house on fire, you arrest him for arson -- you don't arrest him for "illegal thumb twiddling" when he wasn't twiddling his thumbs and twiddling your thumbs isn't illegal. Thus, if someone tries to add crystal balling conjecture from a source, you disqualify it based on WP:Crystal instead of making up some fake rule that conjecture from a reliable source cannot go in an article.

[My tactic: Attempt to prevent subject being changed by pointing out that both he and I are discussing a specific policy, and that WP:Crystal is not that policy]

Again, not that I expect you to understand or acknowledge this, your claim is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by the BLP guidelines.

See: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article". BY DEFINITION, AN ALLEGATION IS A CONJECTURE. And the guidelines say relevant allegations go in. So you can see the BLP guidelines clearly do not prohibit conjecture. SOME conjecture is prohibited on other grounds, such as being irrelevant or unsourced. There is simply no aspect of the BLP guidelines that says all conjecture is prohibited -- yet you repeatedly assert this fictitious, non-existent rule in an effort to bully other editors who attempt to make reference to relevant, reliable source material. That point goes on top of the fact that your nonsensical transformation of "Material which is a conjectural interpretation of a source is prohibited" into the fictitious, non-existent rule that "Conjectures made by a source are prohibited" is a total, obvious, verifiable distortion of what the plain English of the rules say.

[My tactic: Appeal to plain English meanings of words. If any assertion is unproven, it is a conjecture rather than a fact; if any assertion about someone else's conduct is unproven, it is also a conjecture rather than a fact. And not just ANY conjecture, but a specific type of conjecture known as an ALLEGATION.]

You are free to re-write BLP guidelines in your head, but those imaginary guidelines are only applicable in your own imaginary Wikipedia that exists only in your head. If you think 2 + 2 = 5, I can prove you're wrong, but I can't make you believe it.

[My tactic: Attempt, quite colorfully, to express to Collect that there may be numerous situations in which there is a correct and an incorrect interpretation of a Wikipedia policy, rather than a vast number of equally valid interpretations.]

PS, Facts about opinions are facts, and go in a BLP when appropriate. You can say this isn't so, but you are wrong, and your wrongness, like the other wrongness I detailed above, is spelled out in the BLP guidelines. Thank you most kindly.

[My tactic: Remind Collect of substance of BLP policy, which explicitly allows published opinions in BLPs.]

PPS. Your behavior is CONSTANTLY abusive, even more so when you've been proven wrong and feel the need to lash out at the other person in order to cover up the fact that your views have just been comprehensively shown to be false. The first numerous times you asserted a false rule, I chalked it up to a misunderstanding. But now, after having the rule explain to you, you persist in attempting to spread false Wikipedia rules, and it constitutes ongoing abuse.

[My tactic: respond to Collect's accusation of absusive behavior with my own accusation.]

Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[My tactic: Go tit-for-tat on Collect's smarmy, one-of-a-kind practice of ending venomous, sarcastic comments with a "gracious" Thank-you.]

An "allegation" is not a "conjecture." Allegation: "1. Something alleged; an assertion: allegations of disloyalty. 2. The act of alleging. 3. A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations. 4. Law An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence. " Conjecture: "1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. 3. Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens. " As for charging me with "ongoing abuse" such a charge is fatuous ab initio. Thank you most kindly, but each time you assert soemthing is in the archives, and it ain't there, that is far more abusive than my claim that "allegation" and "conjecture" are substantively different. Collect (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[Collect tactic : Listing of dictionary definitions, accompanied by an implication that the definitions somehow vindicate a point of argument, without actually demonstrating or even suggesting how.][Tactic : Pointless use of Latin to dress up an otherwise meritless argument.][Tactic : Change the subject, back to previous Tactic (personal attack).]

By definition, all allegations are conjectural. A conjecture is something which is asserted but not proven. An allegation is a specific type of conjecture: an unproven ACCUSATION. If X is a subset of Y, all X are Y. Thus all allegations are conjectures, but not all conjectures are allegations. XOXO Hope that helps. PS, Your claim that sourced conjecture is prohibited in BLPs is completely without substantiation by any text of the BLP guidelines, as I demonstrated above. Two plus two still equals four even if you say it equals five. PPS the discussion and sources I said were in the archives... are in the archives. I linked them. The newspaper articles haven't been burned, the discussions haven't been deleted. Have a great day.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[My tactic: Another attempt at point by point explanation of my argument.][My tactic: More tit-for-tat on sarcasm.][My tactic: Deny substance of Collect's personal attacks, by saying I was not lying about anything being in the archives. (This points to a larger discussion on Sarah Palin talk page.)]

Nope. All "allegations" are not "conjectural." The terms are not in any way synonymous. As for your misstatements of what I write, I would kindly ask you to desist, as it really clutters up my Talk page. Dictionaries would probably help you a lot. Collect (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[Collect tactic : Simply contradict what the other person is saying, entirely without explanation.][Collect tactic : Straw man. Falsely claim that your opponent is trying to argue X, where X is an invalid and easily defeated argument.][Collect tactic : Assert, without explanation, that what the other editor is saying is simply a misunderstanding of what Collect is saying.][Collect tactic again: Accuse the other editor of making a personal attack or acting in bad faith.][Collect tactic: throw in an insult for good measure, telling me I need a dictionary to understand what the words mean.]

I did not say they were synonymous, as they're not. "Allegations" are a subset of "conjectures". Thus all allegations are conjectures, but all conjectures are not allegations. And all this is somewhat beside the point, since your claim that BLP policies prohibit sourced conjecture is based on a horrible misreading of the plain English meaning of the BLP policy which prohibits conjectural interpretations of a source, which are original research. If the source makes the conjecture, it's not original research; if the editor makes the conjecture, it is. Not that I expect you to acknowledge or understand this obvious truth. You seem determined to distort policy in whatever way suits your purpose at any given time. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[My tactic: reject straw man, again attempt to explain substance of my point.][My tactic: Finally and firmly accuse Collect of acting in bad faith. I stand by this accusation.]

Nor are "allegations" a subset of "conjectures." Nor are any of your logical statements, logical. As for your attempts to misstate my position, that is a matter for your own conscience someday. Try writing without attacking people. Collect (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[Collect tactic, again: simply deny what the other person is saying, without explanation.][Collect tactic : Asserting, without any attempt at explanation, that nothing the other person has said makes any sense.][Collect tactic again: Assert without explanation that the other editor is simply suffering from a misunderstanding.][Collect tactic again: Another accusation of personal attack/bad faith.]

Allegations are a subset of conjectures. All allegations are conjectural: they are unproven. And sourced conjecture can be perfectly legitimate material for a BLP. This is perfectly logical, logical and un-illogical. And I have not misstated you at any time: you have said plainly, in plain English, with clear meaning, that BLP policies prohibit conjectural material, but they plainly don't. Your comments about my conscience and my supposed "attacks" represent nothing more than a further attempt to change the subject escape the obvious conclusion that you are in the wrong yet refuse to admit it.

To wit, BLP guidelines do not prohibit conjectural material, yet you repeatedly, repeatedly, plainly, and falsely say that they do.

You may continue to believe that black is white and 2 + 2 = 5, but do not try to convince another editor of this and ESPECIALLY do not attempt to disqualify any material from an article based on this nonsense. If you do, I will correct you again. Your attempts to change the subject in order to escape having your wrongness demonstrated, will fail, and you will be shown to be wrong. That is all. Good day. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[My tactic: One last attempt at explanation, then close dicussion without resolution.]

Um -- "allegations" are still not a subset of "conjectures." Saying something that ain;t so over and over does not make it so. By the way, when you ascribe a quote to me, I would appreciate it if it were an actual quote from me. What I have said is "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." (actual quote from WP:BLP) Note that there are several classes of material referred to. "Conjectural interpretation of a source" is specifically disallowed. As for the precise real quote -- it remains correct. And please stop iterating your "allegations are a subset of conjectures" silliness here. You have said it enough, and it still is wrong. Collect (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[Collect tactic: Again simply deny what the other person is saying without once having attempted to substantiate the opposite viewpoint.][Collect tactic: Deny that he has asserted that conjectural material is not allowed by BLP policy, instead claim that he was only asserting the exact text of the policy and not his own interpretation of the policy -- the same interpretation this entire argument has been about. Plainly and visibly false, QED above.][Collect tactic: REASSERT the novel interpretation of the BLP policy WHICH HE HAS JUST DISAVOWED IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE BY SAYING HE WAS ONLY ASSERTING THE ORIGINAL POLICY TEXT.][Collect tactic: Use of the word "iteration" to imply that the other person has been engaging in unnecessary repetition of points... even though it is Collect's own unwillingness to either acknowledge or rebut the point that has necessitated repeating it.][Collect tactic: Once more for good measure, deny what the other person is saying outright, without any explanation.]

All allegations are conjectural -- they are unproven. You can say it's not so, but it is. If they were not conjectural, they would be proven, and therefore would no longer be allegations, because the "without proof" condition would no longer be satisfied.

[My last-gasp tactic: Black is black. Up is up. Some things are simply not subject to multiple interpretations. At some point there is no way to further explain 2+2=4.]

Conjectural interpretations of sources ARE indeed specifically disallowed -- as I have repeatedly agreed.

[My tactic: Acknowledge the specific policy as stated in BLP, in preparation for contrasting it to Collect's claim, which is false.]

References to conjectures made by sources are not disallowed, no matter how many times you say it.

[My tactic: Make a final note of the substantive difference between "conjectural interpretation of a source", which is what BLP policy prohibits, and "conjectures made by sources", which is what is prohibited under Collect's "unique" interpretation of the policy, which is contradicted by the rest of the policy, e.g. the language regarding use of sourced allegations and facts about sourced opinions.]

As I said, you may persist in your delusion, but do not try to force other users to abide by your own personal policy that BLPs may not contain any conjectural material, because that is not Wikipedia policy. And if you object to something being included in an article, I highly recommend you find an actual Wikipedia policy which supports removal of it, instead of distorting one or making one up whole cloth. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[My tactic: Tell Collect he is deluded and that Wikipedia is governed by well-stated policies which ought to be used specifically and correctly.]

Use a dictionary. As for your insistence on misciting what I write, it reflects mainly on you. Your allegations are absurd, and my conjectures about you would be unprintable. Allegations are not, never have been, and never will be, a "subset of conjectures." As for using the word "delusion" -- you are so far from normal etiquette that I wonder about those "conjectures" which I now have about you. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[Collect tactic: Mention the dictionary definitions again. STILL not the slightest explanation of how listing definitions from Webster contradicts my position or supports his own.]

Like I said, just don't try to force other users to abide by this fictitious rule you have made up, and you may believe whatever nonsense you like. On Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy is the law of the land. Have a great weekend. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)