User talk:CaptainQuizBowl
CaptainQuizBowl, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi CaptainQuizBowl! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC) |
Welcome
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Important Notice
[edit]
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 any 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.
TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
First Warning
[edit]I was formally warned while discussing bias in the Donald Trump article. There were no insults, just my repeated efforts for someone to explain how it is not biased to present one side of a political argument. Yes I repeated the different versions of my main points. But what is going on fits the definition of bias and the response is basically that it's someone else's bias so its okay. But that one argument is the only one presented and it is done so without context. I do not agree with the need for the warning, but I am now leaving the matter alone. CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- The article summarizes many reliable sources that state that Trump tells lies far more frequently than other American presidents and most other American politicians. This is not bias if the sources are summarized accurately. You could have brought forth reliable sources that say that Trump has an excellent reputation for telling the truth. You did not do so, most likely because those reliable sources do not exist. The warning was necessary because your comments there were becoming tendentious and disruptive. So, you need to be careful about this type of behavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- If you're referring to my template above, it's not a warning, but a notice of an administrative situation. You're a new account who was getting into long arguments on the Trump talk page. Anyone who gets involved on that page is all but guaranteed to get the template. In terms of your actual behavior, listen to what Cullen says above. He's usually right. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not trying to say he tells the truth. Never once did I make even that suggestion. Yet that is where many of the rebuttals automatically go. Once again, it's about the bias that comes through. I noticed in the long discussion of the article how much was dedicated to whether or not and how to address Trump's racism and when I saw the presenting of accusations of his false statements in a manner that comes across as complete facts with no effort in context. By all means, please read the article on Trump then compare it to the article on Obama. Obama clearly spoke falsely on many occasions yet that isn't mentioned whatsoever nor should it in my opinion. That is a political discussion to take place in debates. To place that in there is casting judgement. Yes I have read the sources on numerous occasions about his false statements and they were accurate in correcting the record and as well they should. But placing these sources in the article in the manner at which it is in there comes across as bias. I'm not going to say it again cause it's beating a dead horse. I'm not defending Trump, I'm commenting on the bias tone of the article. Am I crazy or can there be a difference between the two? CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
On a side note, thank y'all for taking the time to discuss with me CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- You are entitled to your personal opinion that the article is biased but our personal opinions have no significance to our editing of Wikipedia articles. That is because our job is to accurately summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. So, discussions about the "bias" of an article need to be based on bringing forward new reliable sources that present a different view of the matter. Maybe you believe that reliable sources are biased against Trump because they keep reporting on his falsehoods. Trump says something like that at all his rallies. If that is what you think, then your argument is with the reliable sources that we summarize, not with Wikipedia itself. So, if you want to argue that any Wikipedia article is "biased", then it is your obligation to explain, in detail, how the article fails to accurately summarize the available reliable sources. Generalized accusations of bias without evidence are unproductive, and if the behavior persists, disruptive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
My messages are not being posted. Curious CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Either way it's done. This will be my 4th. Summary of other points. Editorial bias is hard to combat. Spinning our wheels. Nice disagreeing with you CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Just in case anyone is still looking. I will propose adding a false statements section to Obama's article using the same or similar sources and wordage. We will see what the reception will be. If not added, it will confirm editorial bias which validates articles written about Wikipedia's left leaning bias. Please note, I am a liberal, modern pundits claim liberalism but their stance is progressive. Modern progressivism is at odds with actual liberalism and should be defined as much. Editorial bias will show quickly with my proposal and test. If anyone is still reading my talk page, please do not spoil the experiment as it should be educational for the community and myself. CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's clear you haven't been listening to what experienced editors have been trying to tell you (a bit too patiently in my view). If you can show a massive amount of coverage in reliable sources about Obama's false statements, as exists for Trump, then in my opinion something should be included about it at Obama. This would not be to achieve Obama–Trump parity—which would be counter to Wikipedia policy—but simply because the content would be warranted by the coverage. I.e., that's judged on its own merits independently from what's in any other Wikipedia articles. If you can't show said amount of coverage in reliable sources, then it will be very difficult to get the content into the article, and that will show not editor bias but editor understanding and respect for Wikipedia policies. Good luck finding that much coverage on Obama's false statements.
I'll again suggest that you gain a lot more editing experience (like, years) before writing off Wikipedia as hopelessly biased. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC) - Please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and consider yourself notified that any attempt to disrupt other articles to make some kind of point will result in an immediate block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't disrupt nor have I tried to. I won't take it as a threat but when words like block and warning come into the fray after I simply asked questions and made my case it does come off as threatening. Mandruss, I never said it was hopelessly biased. But if you review the discussions editors got defensive quickly. I stated my case on bias and it took several back and forths before I was met with a good explanation and defense of what I see as the bias. A few comments were hard to refute. Thank you for finally acknowledging that about Obama's article. If I could make the case with proper reliable sources, then it would have a chance to be included. I won't try though because I don't see that it belongs in the main article. Like with Trump's article, I think it's important to maintain neutrality and based off the discussions in Wikipedia I read about his racism and whether to include it, it's hard to believe there is total neutrality by all editors. Mandruss' statement satisfied my curiosity. I still believe their is bias in that article, it's hard to miss but I'll leave it be. Thanks for your attention CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW, simply googling "Obama fact check" will bring up adequate sources. But as I said. It doesn't belong in his main article in my view. CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)