:I hope things go well with the medical stuff. For what it's worth I'll be rooting for you! [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
:I hope things go well with the medical stuff. For what it's worth I'll be rooting for you! [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
::Just a hearty and loud me too! -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' the dog.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''barcus''']] 16:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
::Just a hearty and loud me too! -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' the dog.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''barcus''']] 16:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
== The full [[Monty Python's The Meaning of Life|"Monty"]] ==
😂😂😂!!! Thx for linking to it, Bull. I just read what you're dealing with, so my advice is to maintain your sense of humor and think '''positive'''...it's all going to work out just fine. The power of intention is pretty powerful, so I'll be keeping you in my thoughts. Just so you'll know...I'm recovering from an hour long [[Vitrectomy]] on my left eye, and am just now entering the 2nd week after living 50 min/hr of my waking hours face down. My new "sentence" yesterday reduced it to 30 min/hr. As for my vision, I'll summarize by saying if I get the urge to snorkel, I just open one of my lay flat photo books of Caribbean reef fish, and close my right eye - voila - I'm underwater without getting wet. 🏊🏻♀️ Keep us posted. <sup>[[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme</span>]][[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 20:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:46, 23 May 2018
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.
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[1]
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."[2]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."[1]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Newsweek in December 2017: Putin’s “pawn” or “puppet”. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"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."
"... 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.”[5]
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.
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.
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[1]
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)[reply]
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[2]
March 30 2017. Facebook Failed to Protect 30 Million Users From Having Their Data Harvested by Trump Campaign Affiliate[3]
July 14, 2017. Trump campaign's digital director agrees to meet with House Intel Committee[4]
October 16, 2017. Cambridge Analytica, the shady data firm that might be a key Trump-Russia link, explained[5]
March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvested data from millions of unsuspecting Facebook users[6]
March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica pushes back on Facebook's allegations as top Senate Democrat blasts 'Wild West'[7]
March 17, 2018. Facebook knew of illicit user profile harvesting for 2 years, never acted[8]
March 17, 2018. Facebook suspends Cambridge Analytica, which worked for Trump campaign[9]
March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica and the Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz[10]
March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica: links to Moscow oil firm and St Petersburg university[11]
March 17, 2018. Staff claim Cambridge Analytica ignored US ban on foreigners working on elections[12]
March 17, 2018. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach[13]
March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvest more than 50 million Facebook profiles in 2014, but don't call it a data breach[14]
March 18, 2018. Mass. AG to investigate Facebook, Cambridge Analytica[15]
March 18, 2018. Self-described whistleblower suspended by Facebook after Cambridge Analytica reports[16]
March 18, 2018. 'I made Steve Bannon's psychological warfare tool': meet the data war whistleblower[17]
March 18, 2018. Facebook employs psychologist whose firm sold data to Cambridge Analytica[18]
March 18, 2018. Breach leaves Facebook users wondering: how safe is my data?[19]
March 18, 2018. What is Cambridge Analytica? The firm at the centre of Facebook's data breach[20]
March 18, 2018. Data scandal is huge blow for Facebook – and efforts to study its impact on society[21]
March 18, 2018. Democrats call on Cambridge Analytica head to testify again before Congress[22]
March 18, 2018. Pressure mounts on Cambridge Analytica and Facebook over data scandal[23]
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.
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 Americanconservativepolitical 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.[5] 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.[3][6][7] The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier."[8][9]
=== 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.[10] ... (Rest is totally unchanged.)
^Cite error: The named reference WaPo-paidresearch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Sandbox
== History ==
There were two phases of politicalopposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS, but with completely separate funders. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier.[1][2][3][4]
=== Research funded by conservative website ===
In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an Americanconservativepolitical 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.[5] 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.[3][6][7] The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier."[8][9]
=== 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.[10] ... (Rest is totally unchanged.)
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:
"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 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.[1] At October 2016 political rallies in the US, Trump supporters shouted the word at reporters in the "press pen".[2] Trump himself often referred to the assembled press at his rallies as "the most dishonest people" and "unbelievable liars".[3] American alt-rightwhite nationalistRichard Spencer used the term in an NPI meeting in Washington, D.C. after Trump's victory in the election.
Trump and his followers have often attacked the press, calling them "corrupt", "outright liars", and "the deceitful dishonest media."[5] 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.[6] 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."[7]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
....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)[reply]
Why "well-respected attorneys" are refusing...
Why "well-respected attorneys" are refusing to represent Trump in the Russia case
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have created the following in response to this call for the creation of this type of content by BD2412: "I absolutely agree with that proposition. The paragraph can be fleshed out a bit further to indicate the common reasons which were given for declining representation. It would be nice to find a reliable source saying how unusual it is for top firms and lawyers to decline to represent the President."[1]
This subject is especially important because Trump himself has mentioned it in connection with the "Russia case" (this article's subject) and labeled this view a "Fake News narrative". That makes this content directly on-topic here. Naturally many RS have responded to his accusation. I suggest it get its own section, as these attorneys are not part of the Trump team.
If there is an interest in shortening my version below, the last quote could be tucked into the reference so it only appears in the references' section, but it's important because it mentions the deeper moral and ethical implications, important aspects of the subject which are often ignored.
When considering the many RS which mention this subject, I settled on these legal sources because the lawyers and authors on legal websites are subject experts who tend to have a much more informed and less sensational way of expressing themselves than popular pundits found on TV and popular news sources. That keeps this a serious and sober discussion of the issues. When dealing with such opinions, we could choose to include speculations from non-experts, and our policies do allow that, but I prefer to use expert opinions when possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{quotebox|
In an article describing the "unique circumstance" of Rudy Giuliani's unpaid leave of absence from Greenberg Traurig while representing Trump, possibly because of "potential conflicts", Christine Simmons referred to how some other law firms may have turned down representing Trump in the Russia case due to "public relations headaches or business and recruitment concerns".[1] Trump has called such views a "Fake News narrative",[2][3] but, according to Ryan Lovelace, "many Washington defense attorneys aren't so sure".[3]
In an article for The National Law Journal, Lovelace described how white-collar lawyers must weigh the "risks" and "stigma" of joining the Trump team.[3] The article quotes Barry Boss, co-chair of Cozen O'Connor's Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations Practice:
"Obviously, given the constant shuffle of attorneys in and out of the president's legal team, one would be reticent to focus a significant portion of your practice on representing the president, only to find yourself on the sidelines a short time later because the president saw someone he liked better on Fox News. There is also definitely a stigma to being linked to this president.... [A]ny attorney is going to consider whether a connection to this case will result in other clients not wanting to hire him or her in the future, especially if the representation of the president is going to be short-lived."[3]
Another concern is that Trump doesn't listen to his lawyers.[4]
In an article for Above the Law, Elie Mystal described how some law firms have refused to represent the President of the United States because "Donald Trump has somehow turned POTUS into a dog of a client self-respecting lawyers do not want to touch.":
"While it's, frankly, hilarious to look at all the well-respected attorneys who don't want to get Donald Trump all over them, there is potentially a deeper issue. If all the good attorneys — the ones with reputations to preserve and ethics to uphold — refuse to represent the president, what's left are the 'bad' attorneys. The ones who don't have the slightest idea what a moral and ethical principle is."[5]
^"Donald J. Trump on Twitter". Twitter. March 27, 2018. Retrieved May 6, 2018. Many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case...don't believe the Fake News narrative that it is hard to find a lawyer who wants to take this on. Fame & fortune will NEVER be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted....
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it's time for a lesson about NPOV from MastCell and Drmies.
I get the feeling that the following statement (from above) is a special pleading by Atsme that she, and other editors who share her pro-Trump POV on Trump-Russia subjects, are all somehow innocent and only "appear to have a POV" (and thus any POV issues), and that they are "incorrectly" and "undeservedly" labeled as pro-Trump:
"Of course such editors appear to have a POV; for Pete's sake, the reason they're editing the article in the first place is because of the POV issues that already exist - and that's how editors are incorrectly labeled as pro-whatever when it is clearly not deserved."
Frankly, I don't know of any editors on political articles who don't have a POV which must be reined in, and some do it better than others. (IMO, anyone who doesn't have a political POV is a very uninformed person who is just existing.) Anyone who claims innocence has lost credibility. Our job as editors is to keep our POV from influencing our editing, and that may not always be easy. We all have blind spots, so editors who hold opposing POV need each other. (FYI, I know exactly where I stand on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm not some "neutral" dummy.)
Remember that NPOV states that content should be written "as far as possible, without editorial bias". Note that word "editorial". It's important. Our sources, and thus content, may have a bias, and editors should faithfully document what a source says with its bias. We document biases here. It is "editorial" bias which is forbidden.
MastCell and Drmies recently had a very instructive discussion with Atsme and Emir of Wikipedia on MastCell's talk page. (I trust they'll correct me if I get this wrong.) There they explained in detail how what appears to be an anti-Trump bias at Wikipedia is not such, but just a faithful, NPOV, documentation of Trump's words and actions. I'll pick out a few choice quotes, and I hope others will read the whole thread, because it was excellent:
MastCell: "I'm going to put this out there for you to consider: it may be that there is no way to describe some of the things Trump does without sounding, as you put it, "disparaging". He bragged to a reporter about sexually assaulting women with impunity. How do you propose we say that without sounding "negative" or "disparaging"? He defended a violent neo-Nazi mob as containing "some very fine people", and drew a moral equivalence between them and anti-Nazi protesters. How do we say that in a way that meets your definition of neutrality? He publicly begged the Russian government to hack and release the emails of his political opponent. And stereotyped Mexican immigrants as "rapists and murderers". He mocked a disabled reporter and the family of a US Army officer killed in combat. He's routinely dishonest, and promotes easily disprovable falsehoods, to a degree that is unprecedented even by modern political standards. None of these things are my opinion. All of them are facts reported by numerous reliable sources. If someone's words and actions frequently reflect negatively on them, that is not evidence that Wikipedia has a bias. Nor is it evidence that the mainstream media, or reliable sources, have a bias. I wish you (and others) would stop treating it as such."[2] (My emphasis)
Emir of Wikipedia: "... or did you just want to write that big paragraph attacking Trump?"[3]
MastCell: "See, this is the kind of reflexive, unthinking silliness that I was trying to put my finger on. I'm not "attacking" Trump. I'm listing a number of things he's done—undisputedly, really, actually done—and asking Atsme how she would propose we cover those in what she considers a "neutral" fashion. I think that's a useful exercise, because it gets at the distinction between biased editing and accurate descriptions of a person's (negatively perceived) actions. If you choose to view it in starker battleground terms—as me "attacking" Donald Trump—then that's your prerogative, I guess."[4] (My emphasis)
Drmies: "See, Emir of Wikipedia, that's the thing--that big fat paragraph contains nothing but factual statements. You want to call that negative, you can--but that's not MastCell being negative. It's kind of like someone complaining about the weather report because it reports rain, rain, rain, when it's raining, raining, raining."[5]
Atsme: (long comment)
MastCell: "As for being "anti-whatever", the problem (as I've tried to touch on above) is that you seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds."[6]
(Here MastCell accurately describes what seems to be Atsme's mission at Wikipedia, at least in regard to Trump and Russia, but likely not for other subjects. I say "seems to be", because all we can go by is her actions, not what she says. She claims to edit in an NPOV manner, but her actions say otherwise.)
My point is that MastCell and Drmies are both VERY right. An NPOV description of many of Trump's statements and actions will seem to be anti-Trump, when in fact that is the only NPOV way to portray them.
When editors with a pro-Trump POV censor, or otherwise try to tweak (or even worse to delete) such content, they seem to invariably violate NPOV, and their discussions to further those aims are long and disruptive. That's not good, especially since they feel they are editing in an NPOV manner. They portray themselves as innocent, while putting all the blame on editors who are skeptical of Trump, claiming they are "anti-Trump", as is done above. Well, these pro-Trump editors have mistaken notions about NPOV. An NPOV description will often portray Trump in a negative light. It will, and should, seem anti-Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BR - what you did above is the same kind of POV cherrypicking that is evident in your article edits - you use only what supports your POV and to hell with everything else - and that attitude is part of the reason there is so much controversy/disruption at Trump-related articles that you edit. Your attempt to discredit me just boomeranged. Atsme📞📧 22:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer I really appreciate the shoutout, and of course it's nice to hear that I was right about something, but please leave me out of this day-to-day business. If the fate of the encyclopedia is at stake, or the BLP, you know I'll jump right in. If you think that Atsme is really that disruptive or distracting or whatever, take it up at AE and build a case. One of the things old-timers like MastCell and I have learned is that if you're protesting or denouncing something or someone and it doesn't gain traction, you're just pissing in the wind (I'm a big Neil Young fan...). I don't know if you have taken this to arbitration (I don't keep up with current events that much), but if you think you have a case, make it. If not--well, there's a ton of 19th and 20th century poets that need articles... Drmies (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, one can always hope that some lessons about NPOV will be learned, but, as you can see.... I do think they are disruptive by constantly working as MastCell described, but civil disruption never gets dealt with here. Arbitration discussions require lots of diffs, but civil disruption is hard to pin down with diffs. They can always claim they were joking, so we really are pissing in the wind.
No admin has yet handed out a topic ban to stop this, even though, because of DS, they could do it on the spot, without long and disruptive arbitration discussions. They could just do it, but their DS powers are rarely used.
Therefore we'll just continue working with chains around our ankles. It really slows things down when one wastes lots of time on talk page discussions, so I try to keep my participation to a minimum. It shoudn't have to be that way. We should be discussing improving content, rather than trying to keep articles from being gutted. Seriously. That's what we're dealing with daily. Atsme even thinks the Trump-Russia dossier article shouldn't exist. She's been pretty open about that, and that reveals several basic failures to understand our PAG.
We must remember that Trump's "fake news" war against RS is duplicated here by his supporters. Wikipedia suffers the consequences because it doesn't deal with editors who share Trump's POV about sources. Unfortunately, editors are not required to pass a short course about how to vet sources. That creates a very fundamental type of competence problem that spoils everything else they do. These editors are frustrated because RS seem anti-Trump, rather than recognizing they are documenting Trump's self-inflicted wounds. You and MastCell tried to explain this, but, as we can see, to no good. When will someone hand out a topic ban for this type of insidious IDHT? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up, about the template you added to the article. Nunes memo does not have consensus required, 1RR, or the civility restrictions. Also only admins are supposed to add those templates. At least that is what Sandstein told me on their user page here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that User:NeilN said that anyone can add them. Let's see what he says. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also since there is no edit notice or anything logged in WP:AEL there are not extra restrictions on that page. Courtesy ping to Sandstein as well. PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - I just saved Terence_Hogan from extinction. It's one helluva criminal conspiracy but with a human side - the guy was never arrested and the crimes he was involved in made history. I can't think of a better editor to tackle such a project - maybe help expand it to make it eligible for DYK, and possibly GA. There are some published books and RS media articles about it but because Hogan was never caught, it's not an easy puzzle to piece together - 3 different high profile crimes. There are clues and published anecdotal evidence that ties Terry Hogan to the crimes (one alias he used was Harry Booth). Unfortunately, the 3 news sources that published his and/or his daughter's full story (Karen Hogan) are not RS (Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail). Atsme📞📧 01:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that guy and those cases. IIRC, I've seen a TV special about him. What a character! It's now on my watchlist. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AE notification
You are involved in a dispute which is being discussed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. GoldenRing (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, thanks for the notification. I see that Factchecker's violation(s) of their one-way iBan with me, imposed by User:NeilN, is mentioned. He violated it at least three(?) times recently. What should I do? I am very reluctant to mention him or engage him, as it gives him another excuse for attacking me. I am also not a big fan of these types of proceedings. I have been the victim of his persistent and withering attacks. That's why the iBan.
You'll notice that Factchecker's response to the iBan on his talk page was to ridicule it, and he has never accepted the rationale. That's a problem. He finally got blocked for 31 hours, and very quickly re-started the very aggressive and disruptive behavior, which then became attacks against me, in violation of the iBan.
I see that the one diff provided by Casprings to an iBan violation is not a good one. Other occasions are actual instances. I'll have to dig them up. They are likely at the recent AN/I thread.
Normal discussion on article talk pages is not forbidden, but gratuitous mentioning and criticizing of me and my edits is not, IOW "discuss the edit, not the editor". In administrative proceedings, where Factchecker (or others) is the main subject, he is not allowed to use it as an excuse to criticize me, but he did.
If I had been the main subject of a proceeding, the sanction would allow him to criticize me. Otherwise, in other proceedings, just because someone else might mention me, that's still no excuse for him to repeat the old accusations against me which caused him to get the iBan in the first place.
For my part, I have been very careful to not engage with him or mention him, and when I have responded to any talk page content comment of his, I have been very civil, so as not to give him any excuse to start attacking me again. I hope this doesn't turn into a victim blaming game where I get punished for Factchecker's behavior. There are some comments and propositions which tend in that direction. That's very wrong. There is no excuse for slapping me with any iBan or Tban.
I have not been the problem here. Those who push conspiracy theories from Breitbart and Daily Caller would dispute that, but that's because their agenda is to delete or minimize any content which reflects poorly on Trump, no matter how well-sourced. That violates a lot of PAG. That's no exaggeration, and MastCell, an admin who understands the underlying issues here, pointed out the agenda of this "team" of editors: "As for being "anti-whatever", the problem (as I've tried to touch on above) is that you [Atsme] seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds."
Any sanction against me would further their agenda. While Factchecker does not use unreliable sources, he is on the same team mentioned by MastCell, and those editors are showing up at this proceeding. Don't be fooled by them. Masem seems to understand this. Their suggestion of a specific TBAN on AP2 articles would be a good solution. This is not the proper venue to drag others into it. Too much collateral damage without good diffs. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment at AN
Hey, I saw your comment at AN about having a lousy day. For what it's worth, I hope you get feeling better! I know we disagreed but I also found you pleasant to chat with. Take care Springee (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Much appreciated. Fortunately I'm otherwise in good health and this new "condition" causes no symptoms...yet. It was a find on a routine colonoscopy. (Don't put it off!) I'm in a rather worrisome waiting position. No proper diagnosis until I get a full surgery (no date yet) and the mass fully sectioned and analyzed. Right now the small biopsy sample seemed harmless, but it could be a false negative result. If it turns out positive, then I'll have to go in again for a much larger surgery. Right now it's classed as a tubulovillous adenoma. The location, right by the ileocecal valve, is really dumb.
BTW, I still don't know which section in the NRA article you're talking about. What key words should I search for? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notice was actually placed in a subsection of the section in question. [[7]]
I hope things go well with the medical stuff. For what it's worth I'll be rooting for you! Springee (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
😂😂😂!!! Thx for linking to it, Bull. I just read what you're dealing with, so my advice is to maintain your sense of humor and think positive...it's all going to work out just fine. The power of intention is pretty powerful, so I'll be keeping you in my thoughts. Just so you'll know...I'm recovering from an hour long Vitrectomy on my left eye, and am just now entering the 2nd week after living 50 min/hr of my waking hours face down. My new "sentence" yesterday reduced it to 30 min/hr. As for my vision, I'll summarize by saying if I get the urge to snorkel, I just open one of my lay flat photo books of Caribbean reef fish, and close my right eye - voila - I'm underwater without getting wet. 🏊🏻♀️ Keep us posted. Atsme📞📧 20:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]