This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Kirstjen Nielsen "Future employability"
I hear what you are saying ~ I have not had the chance to research Maggie Haberman ~ I hope to learn a lot from you ~ you sound like a very well educated person and I am always looking to learn but BLP seems to be a hot spot for me. I am only trying not to curve peoples judgments about a living person ~ especially one who was caught of guard by losing her job ~ thanks again ~ Mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Mitchellhobbs, I've been here since 2003, and got an account in 2005, so I've seen a bit here, and my fingerprints and wordings are in a number of our most important policies. Our job is not to protect people, but to document what RS say. In cases of doubt, we tend to do some sort of protection, such as not including negative information that is trivial and not covered by RS, but only by gossip sources. We are especially protective of children.
For really negative allegations that are covered by multiple RS, even when false and libelous, we are required to include (see WP:PUBLICFIGURE) such information (failure to do so would be whitewashing and a serious violation of editorial neutrality, which is what NPOV is about). We must also include their denials, even when they are self-serving lies. (Criminals always deny.) Including denials is my contribution to that policy.
In this case, and I haven't been following very closely, it appears that RS are paying attention and commenting, so we may need to add it. In most cases involving politically-motivated boycotts, such as when Republicans or Democrats target the opposition to make life hard for them (both sides do it), the person's personal integrity ends up being their best defense.
If an otherwise honest person is targetted by a boycott, it only has a temporary effect and no real effect for future employment possibilities, since employers understand what's going on and ignore the smoke and noise. They know the person is honest and good, so they may hire them. By contrast, for people who are associated with nastiness, corruption, lying, etc, IOW nearly all those whom Trump has chosen to hire and associate with (he's always been this way), their poor reputation is well-deserved and a boycott just serves to put a magnifying glass up to their atrocious actions and bad character qualities. Many are literal criminals who have been convicted or are about to be. In such a case, the boycott may have a strong effect, as employers will look at the situation and think "Do I really want my company associated with someone who did those things, who has been rightly accused of those crimes, and who has been associated with Trump?" Wise employers will say "No way." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks it helps me to understand. Hey while I have you on the line can you look at Talk:LPL Financial legal section and tell me what you think, no rush not trying to take your time away ~ thanks again ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Your intense obsession with me is more than creepy. You are also abusing the AE/DS system by jumping over every link in the dispute resolution process and going directly to the top as your first reaction. You are showing very bad faith and no collaborative spirit here. BTW, MrErnie and Phmoreno are able to handle their own affairs and answer for themselves. They don't need your help. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
BR - I think you need to take a step back from the Bill Barr claims - I've seen you criticize his credibility a few days ago, diff here. To most people, Barr is a highly respected lawyer who knows what he is doing. He also knows how to be the AG, as he's done it before. We will know more when the (redacted) Mueller report is released and IG Horowitz is finished with his investigation. Mueller and Barr are very close and have great respect for one another - if Barr misrepresented anything I would hope Mueller would have called him out about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't notice when I did it, I modified a comment about Barr. As far as criticizing Barr, RS do plenty of that, and I don't say anything not found in RS, including the statement I modified. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
You have been sanctioned for continuing to use article talk pages to make derogatory comments about the motivations of other editors despite warnings. (Warnings: [1][2], latest example of personal comments: [3])
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Please consider a blanket reversal of these restrictions on both editors. This is a contentious topic. We are working through it on the talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@BR. This is really a very light editing restriction that concerns only article talk pages. Furthermore, this is something everyone should follow by default. It does not make more difficult your participation in this subject area. Quite the opposite, actually. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
This is pretty disheartening. It comes at a really bad time after all the recent disruption in our lives. We lost everything in the Camp Fire. November 8, 2018, was the day that hell visited Paradise and burned it all to the ground. It was the most expensive disaster in the world in 2018. 86 people burned to death. Nearly the whole town (and smaller communities) was burned (Paradise (30,000) and Magalia (11,000)), and about 52,000 people were evacuated within a few hours. We got out alive, but it was close.
We have had to endure a sudden loss of home and belongings, shelter, jobs, and personal independence. We experienced displacement, short-term extreme poverty, forced to accept aid from organizations and kind individuals (some from Wikipedia), fear, worry, depression, hopelessness, insomnia, acute hospitalizations for stress-related conditions, and a whole host of crap.
Fortunately, we are getting back on our feet in a totally different part of the country, and we are seeing hope at the end of the tunnel. Life will never be the same. Our friendships and social contacts are fractured and spread all over the place, quite literally. Suddenly we are never going to see most of the people we daily saw and loved. Now we are all suddenly living and working in different parts of the country and world. I never imagined I would once again live in the South. I lived in Tennessee and Alabama for short periods when I was younger, and this California boy never could get used to the extreme humidity, and, especially outside the larger cities, the ignorance and racist mentality. It's like going back in time 100 years. I hate it, but now am back here, but with family nearby. We'll just have to make the best of it, as there is literally nothing left to go back to.
I really try to do a good job here, and that means that sometimes Wikipedia and its policies need to be defended against editors who constantly attack them. I feel that is the duty of every good Wikipedian. That is not battleground behavior, even though, at a superficial glance, it might appear so. I used to get barnstars for Defending Wikipedia. Now I get punished. Times have indeed changed.
Not all of the same actions by different editors are equal. One must look at the type of editor, their track record, and whether they are working with or against our policies. The use of unreliable sources (even on talk pages), pushing of conspiracy theories, and attacks on mainstream editors who use RS should not be tolerated. I don't care if a Trump believer uses reliable sources 95% of the time in their article editing. They should still never advocate or depend on unreliable sources, or call RS "fake news", although they are emulating Trump by doing so.
Personally, for my own sake, the sanction can have a positive effect. OTOH, what I feared most about the sanction I have received has already been confirmed: it was received by my accuser as a clear signal that their hounding and harassment of me at AE was justified, and that their actions which I criticized were also justified. That is how they have reacted to the sanction I received, and they feel that their sanction was unjust. I don't know who will fix that situation, but something needs to be done.
Personally, on the constructive side, I fully intend to take the cautionary advice about my personal comments to heart and do better. That advice is very proper. It's something I've been working on for some time and have made progress in that direction in the last few years, but there is always room for improvement. I really appreciate all the support, and I truly appreciate constructive criticism. I need advice both here and by email. Please continue to help me become a better Wikipedian. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Mitchellhobbs, thanks for your concern. Much appreciated. This place can be treacherous, and there are vipers, traps, and travails hidden around here. It's a complicated place, so tread lightly, try not to offend anyone, and stay very close to policies.
Your integrity and reputation are your most important currency here. They can carry you through many a difficulty. We all make mistakes, but if other editors and admins know we have a good track record, are constructive, and have a positive learning curve, they are more likely to understand our actions and imperfections better. I hope you have a positive experience here and learn a whole lot.
Editing here is like having a reserved seat in the university train car on the bullet train of knowledge. Your skull will need to expand. I love it. Ever since I can first remember anything, I've had an insatiable craving for knowledge and learning, and my family background really encouraged that. Even my grandparents (grandfather born in 1880 and died in 1981) were college grads. Every single member of my family in at least three directions are college grads, many with advanced degrees. So, if you really want to learn, this is "where it's at." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
please don't leave User:BullRangifer I really had a wonderful time arguing the point ~ we did it on the talk page and if an editor can not express their opinion on a talk page what good is a wiki's talk page ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellhobbs (talk • contribs) 02:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
~Sorry I forgot to sign it ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
On Article Talk pages within the topic area, you may not make personal comments accusing editors or groups of editors of doing things like assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, being biased, or being uncivil. In other words you should basically just focus on article content instead of other users.
If another editor notifies you that you are in violation of this sanction you can remedy the problem by removing the comment, editing it with the appropriate strike and underline markup, or hatting the comment. If the comment was genuinely not intended as a personal comment you can explain how it was a miscommunication and apologize/refactor as necessary. Personal comments in edit summaries can also be resolved via apology. Be aware however that if you are subsequently reported to an administrator it will be the administrator who will judge whether the comment was personal or not and whether reparation attempts were adequate.
Users reporting violations of this sanction must follow the instructions here.
This is a civility-type sanction and is very good. I like it. It's good to be reminded of this type of thing, because, human nature being what it is, in the heat of the moment and when one is being attacked, it's easy to react/respond by sliding toward this type of offensive behavior, even when one has good intentions and does it to defend Wikipedia against attempts to undermine its policies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
In April 2018, the House Intelligence Committee, then in Republican control, released a final report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which stated that the House Intelligence Committee found that "in late July 2016, the FBI opened an enterprise CI [counterintelligence] investigation into the Trump campaign following the receipt of derogatory information about foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos."[1][2][3]Bold added.
From "THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDELINES ON GENERAL CRIMES, RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE AND DOMESTIC SECURITY/TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS":[4]
A. Racketeering Enterprise Investigations
This section focuses on investigations of organized crime. It is concerned with investigation of entire enterprises, rather than individual participants in specific criminal acts, and authorizes investigations to determine the structure and scope of the enterprise as well as the relationship of the members. Except as specified below, this authority may be exercised only when the activity engaged in by the racketeering enterprise involves violence, extortion, narcotics, or systematic public corruption.
1. Definitions
Racketeering activity is any offense, including the violation of state law, encompassed by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(1).[4]Bold added.
I have bolded the part that seems to apply, as there has been no indication that the Trump campaign has been involved in "violence, extortion, narcotics", whereas "systematic public corruption" would seem to fit.
Does anyone know more about this? I'm not interested in including any OR anywhere, so am seeking help from others who know more and who might know of other relevant sources which can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
In a case like this, where you're dealing with an IP, it should be easy to get the page semi-protected without providing any evidence because the problem will be evident from the article's history. Go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and file a complaint. If your complaint is legitimate (more than just one or two examples of vandalism), an admin will then go to the article and will often protect it so that IPs and very new users can't edit it. BTW, I added your missing sig. Remember those four tildes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks I'm horrible ~ I learned to twinkle ~ after taking the warning very seriously Mitchellhobbs (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Volume 2 is within the Report
Hello,
Just noticed your recent edit and comment here and just wanted to say that Volume 1 and Volume 2 is within the same report. Earlier yesterday, I was confused as well a little bit. And if you are looking for a searchable (CTRL+SHIFT+F or COMMAND F) PDF of the report, here is this version. It is good for the most part but, for example, "Comey" is "Corney and "FBI" is "FBl. Not 100% of the time but quite often. Cheers! Aviartm (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much! The way the title provided a volume number, I expected Volume 2 to be separate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The Media Bias Chart and how it rates sources
If you're interested in fact checking and evaluation of sources for accuracy and bias, check out both of these links. This happens to be the best media bias chart I know of:
"Most people don’t visit 40 sites about one story to compare bias and quality, but that’s one of the things we do here, so we hope it helps you get a better sense of the universe of reporting."
"Junk news (by which we mean anything falling in the hyper-partisan (-18 to +18) and beyond categories, and anything below 40 on our quality scale) mostly serves to satisfy people’s craving to be right and confirm their existing beliefs."
I like to regularly check the chart to ensure I only use the best sources and keep track of which are good for facts and which are good for opinions, noting that it's important to check both the left and right sides of the spectrum for how their bias is related to the facts. If their bias hasn't caused them to twist the facts and engage in whitewashing or propaganda, then they can still be used. Both sides are guilty of that at times, while at other times their bias leaves the facts intact. It's pretty fascinating. Have fun. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Mueller Report footnote about pee tape
Here is the Mueller Report footnote 112 (pages 27 and 28, Volume 2) to content about Comey's briefing of Trump about the pee tape:
112 Corney 1/7/17 Memorandum, at 1-2; Corney 11/15/17 302, at 3. Corney's briefing included the Steele reporting's unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On October 30, 20 I6, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there' s anything else. Just so you know " 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said "tapes" referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. Rtskhiladze 4/4/ l 8 30 2, at 12. Coh en said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhilad ze. Cohen 9/12/18 302 , at 13. Rts khiladz e said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen. Rtskhiladze 5/ l0/18 302, at 7.
Rtskhiladze has tried to backtrack his comments, but he treated them as real when he "stopped the flow". He stopped something. That's what he told Cohen and Mueller. To later say it was rumors, etc, is disingenuous.
POSSIBLY USEFUL SOURCES:
This one could be used in the Trump-Russia dossier article:
The opinions are all over the map, some ignoring the disconnect between Rtskhiladze's backtracking and what he actually did (stopped the flow of embarrassing tapes for Cohen, whose job it was to bury this type of thing):
Yes, I have. It's listed above. The coverage in RS is all over the map. I hope more sources analyze this and things settle down a bit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Good morning BullRangifer Hope you had your coffee,
I sent this draft for review, If you are the reviewer please let me know what I have to do to improve in order to be accepted, also there is a section in Burger King franchises (at the bottom) and GPS Hospitality for ref of why I started this article ~ thanks ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I gather you are interested in Russian interference type stories and might like a break from the intensive focus/fighting in AmPol. Would you like to look into a story about a Russian company's activities in Sudan that CNN & Salon are reporting? Here are the refs in case it interests you: [4], [5]. The first is a video, and the second seemed a bit confused. You may find more in the Radio Dabanga references in the entry cited above... I thought I'd ask you since you like to work on the subject. I don't have a lot of time to tease out that story, as the workweek is starting soon. If not, I understand, of course. Best, SashiRolls t · c 19:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
It's on my watchlist now. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I have stricken the only part that might remotely be considered offensive by a reasonable person. Edit summary: "Striking part that has offended. The rest is perfectly legitimate, especially considering the nature of the previous comment and the support for my comment that followed.."
Before your comment above I wasn't even aware of this, but right now you seem to be fighting off (and even deleting) comments from several esteemed editors who find your comments quite offensive, contrary to policy, and a resumption of the behaviors which got you topic banned. Do you really want that topic ban reinstalled, but made permanent?
I suggest that when you have gotten yourself in trouble, don't flounder about trying to find such tidbits to get other editors in trouble. That kind of deflection and unconstructive flailing about is battleground behavior and undermines the collaborative atmosphere we try to maintain. Instead, own your own problems and deal with them without trying to deflect attention by pointing at others. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I would argue that making accusations of stonewalling[6] is not a particularly wise move less than 24 hours after calling someone out for making accusations of stonewalling. Hypocrisy bad. ―Mandruss☎ 19:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
LOL! I appreciate the irony, but you've just got it backwards (and maybe got the wording twisted around? Maybe "after calling" should be "before calling"? Also, I didn't accuse her of stonewalling. She's the one who made that accusation.). I wasn't really responding to just one comment, but responding to an escalation of increasingly problematic comments by Atsme (mostly undermining our RS policy), ending with her comment: "I'm not going to feed the stonewalling. Read NPOV."
Without really thinking about that word specifically, I was responding to that comment which just happened to contain the word "stonewalling". That's pretty ironic, if I had been thinking about only that word, but I wasn't. I was just trying to put a stop to a train that was starting to run away. All that aside, and ignoring my thinking at the time, it would superficially appear that I was calling out her use of the word after using it myself "less than 24 hours" before, which does sound pretty hypocritical. The irony there is thick, but only if one ignores my thinking and sees my comment as a response to only one comment, which just happened to contain that word.
Now let's not allow this to distract from the issue at hand, unless there should be sanctions for "incorrect thinking", "holding wrong opinions", "hypocrisy" and "the appearance of hypocrisy". Yes! Let's make templates against those human frailties and make them subject to DS sanctions. ("Why Wikipedia Blocked All Editors in Less than 48 Hours", The New York Times) -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
BR - I came to your TP out of courtesy to you because you violated your DS imposed by Awilley. I didn't expect you to respond the way you did, and it is very disappointing. I only know that things elevated after you accused me of bad faith and started the beehive effect. I'm not the one who is "in trouble" BR - your edit summaries tell the story: /* Heads-up */ Stricken, and some advice, unless you really want your topic ban made permanent. and (Striking part that has offended. The rest is perfectly legitimate, especially considering the nature of the previous comment and the support for my comment that followed.) You keep violating the imposed DS. The evidence at the article TP unambiguously demonstrates WP:STONEWALL beginning here and moving down the page well past here. And your commment and threats of WP:SANCTIONGAME aimed at me by you based on nothing more than WP:DONTLIKEIT regarding my proposed changes to update/improve the article with the inclusion of AG Barr's summary. You said here (my bold), "There is no consensus for including this content yet, at least not that I know of. We are still discussing whether to add such material, which would radically change the scope of the article.. Having been a previous target of such tactics, I am better able to recognize what's happening before it creates a problem. There is a WP:OWN issue at that article as well. I did nothing wrong on the article TP but was wrongfully accused of it. I even took precautions by striking my evaluation on the advice of another editor. I am doing my best to keep my hands clean. The case against me at ANI was closed and dismissed before the OP and others were boomeranged - there was obviously no disruption and no policy vios. As for my TP - I did what was necessary to stop harrassment. THE END. I have other work to do, and really don't give a flying flip about what happens here now, or at that article. It will all come out in the wash. AtsmeTalk📧 19:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
As I see it, there is simply a difference of opinion, not stonewalling, as to whether we should radically change the scope of the article. Except for the interjections of the block evading IP, and then your labeling of the discussion as "stonewalling", we had been having a civil discussion. We are trying to work it out. That's not stonewalling. Changing the entire scope of an article is a pretty serious matter, and not to be taken lightly. Why you seem to single out my very civil and explanatory comments (your diffs above) as stonewalling is beyond me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, did you notice my suggestion to use (after refinements) what's in my sandbox as part of the Spygate article, or as a separate disambig page? What do you think of that idea? It definitely isn't ready for use yet, but with some work it might be usable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
BR, I have to apologize, I was wrong. As this thread clearly shows, the editing restriction by Awilley did not make your life easier. To the contrary. Here is how this can be handled. (1) Let's notice for ourselves that behavior by many users in difficult subject areas is indeed problematic: biases, bad faith, stonewalling, whatever. (2) Let's admit there is little we can do about it. (3) Let's say nothing about it on article talk page. (4) If this is too difficult (I do not think this is too difficult), let's go edit a slightly less controversial page. Why not? My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
My very best wishes, you are more right than you know. This is an extra-policy based sanction. It doesn't just enforce existing policy, it goes beyond. I cannot do what is allowed for everyone else. Yes, it's good to be careful what one says about other editors, and I have erred on that point, but no more than most other editors. I just came on the radar because of one editor's harassment (for which he was rewarded), not because I had committed a horrible sin. Other admins thought I shouldn't be sanctioned, but it happened anyway. No, it's not a trivial thing at all.
Improving my behavior isn't the problem, it's the being treated worse than others when I'm not worse than others part that really cuts deep and causes depression and dark thoughts. Losing face (to be humiliated, experience public disgrace, to be treated unfairly) and the related consequences of depression and Harikiri (I'm Caucasian American with Japanese and Korean cultural upbringing), is a big thing in my family, so this public blotch on my honor has some far-reaching consequences. It makes life more difficult. It's not fair, especially when one realizes that the search for, and promotion of, justice is a big focus of my life. Social justice is related, and why Les Misérables is my favorite book. Single acts have vastly different consequences. The book shows how a single act of forgiveness can transform a person and change the course of their life. The same can be said for a single act of injustice, especially for someone prone to chronic depression. I'm still pondering how to resolve this situation because it's intolerable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
One advice is just to take it easy and do something else. Speaking more seriously, reading and understanding the Sermon on the Mount can help. At one point I read a good translation of the Bible with explanations by theologians and found its ideas very interesting, may be true, even looking under the angle of science or rather science fiction. Yes, I like Victor Hugo. As about modern politics, it can drive anyone to depression. One could easily blame several US administrations of "collusion" [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Good advice. I'm a preacher's kid, so I'm very familiar with that sermon, and it's really choice. Everyone should read it. The world would be a much better place if we followed those principles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict with MVBW, who I think is saying essentially the same thing as I am.)
There is no way of dealing with this topic area without becoming over- emotional if one feels any kind of a political commitment. I cannot even read the discussions between the people trying to edit here without becoming angry--it's not anger at the editors, it's anger at the situation of my country, which will spill over into anger at anything related. That doesn't mean I shy away from reading the news, or reading WP articles on the topic--it does mean I avoid arguments about the news, or about WP's coverage of the topic.
BR, you are right that you have been treated unjustly. As I see it , all the editors involved here have been treated unjustly by other editors, and all of them have reason to complain that the sanctions regarding them are unfair; your joke above ""Why Wikipedia Blocked All Editors in Less than 48 Hours"" is very much to the point.
Nobody should leave WP because of this, or take it personally--it's inherent to editing in any topic where one has strong feelings, and especially one where the feelings are justified by the direct real world implications of extreme danger.
the only solution I can see is that all the people involved in this should step back, and edit other topics. But who will then edit these articles? Perhaps people who regard all sides of US politics as the actions of dangerous but amusing creatures to be watched from a safe distance. And they too should do this only for a short while, because if they keep at it they cannot help but become emotionally invested also. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the topic can get under one's skin, but I don't get that emotionally involved about it. It just concerns me that our country is under attack and Trump isn't doing anything to stop it because it helped him, and now he's gotten the green light to openly accept any and all help from an enemy foreign power. This is really bizarre. Every branch of government has been compromised. We've never seen this happen before.
What irks me is the sanction's application, not the principle behind it. The idea is good enough, but it shouldn't penalize an editor above and beyond what our policies require, while its application to me rewarded the offender for being a busy body who repeatedly harassed me and abused the system by reporting me, the last time for something which didn't even involve him. (The one it involved is indeffed, and other editors thought my comment was justified, but that's another matter...) The admins there thought I shouldn't be sanctioned, but it happened. It came as a shock. Meritless reports should be boomeranged back and their victim let go without sanction, especially when the reporter has exaggerated some common misbehavior into a capital offense, making it seem like it was something I did all the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to partly disagree, but I do not think that US is "under attack" by any foreign power. This is a serious internal crisis of the US democracy itself, with the executive branch taking over the power and eliminating the oversight by the legislative branch (a standard scenario on the path to dictatorships). I can only hope this will be properly resolved. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect we actually agree that what you mention is clearly happening at the same time as Russians (and others) are supporting it (with acceptance of that help), fomenting division (also accepted), and carrying on cyber warfare (little done to stop it). Our democracy, government institutions, Constitution, and Separation of Powers are all under attack by both domestic and foreign adversaries. Under this administration, every official government agency seems to have been compromised and crippled. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
But still, US is a wonderful place, compare to many other countries. Let's enjoy by whatever we have and love our "enemies". My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Definitely. I've lived in six different countries, and America, with all its faults, is still where I consider "home". That's why I care so much about when we aren't living up to our potential for good and when we are attacked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
(Un)fortunately, I can not consider Russia my "home" any longer. Speaking about editing here, unfortunately, this looks to me as a waste of time. At the very least, I can do something more important for humanity. You some others are doing very good work around here. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I just left a message on your page while you were writing the above. Let's discuss it there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from lecturing other editors
With this edit it seems to me that you are touching the edge of the WP:No personal comments sanction. While you did not directly engage in "accusing editors [of] assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, being biased, or being uncivil", it seems to me that the spirit of the sanction should nudge you to refrain from lecturing other editors about the way they assert their position on any issue under discussion. The sanction text does say: In other words you should basically just focus on article content instead of other users. This part of your comment:
Now you, one solo editor, comes along and slaps ALL THOSE EDITORS in the face and says to them: "You're all wrong, only I am right, and I'm going to trash all your hard work." Stop and think about how demoralizing and disruptive that type of action is to what we all do here.
particularly raised my eyebrows. I may be wrong, and would welcome Awilley's opinion. I do know that your occasional patronizing tone with various editors annoys me. All that being said in the spirit of your earlier call to "please tell me frankly how I can improve my interactions".[9] Please ponder this. — JFGtalk 20:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I concur. It's a matter of tone. While it's virtually impossible to acquire humility at our advanced ages, we can learn to simulate it. While it's a mathematical requirement that five percent of editors are in the top five percent of editors in terms of editing competence, the collaborative nature of the project requires that they refrain from regularly and aggressively forcing that down other editors' throats. The same ends can be accomplished without the domineering, intimidating tone (more effectively, many times) and that self-moderating social skill is itself part of editing competence.This is not a lecture and I hope it won't be taken as one. Just one man's viewpoint. I wouldn't even offer it but for the fact that BullRangifer has said he's receptive to constructive criticism and I take that at face value. ―Mandruss☎ 21:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate hearing how both of you see this matter. For some odd reason I have difficulty seeing myself as others see me. . I really tried to be civil and point the editor in a different, and hopefully more constructive, direction by suggesting they use ethical, moral, and humanitarian thinking. That's about as far from incivility as possible. I hoped that would work better than just talking about rules and BRD, since even careful explanations weren't working at all.
As I feared, I see that the sanction is being interpreted much more strictly than it is worded, so I'll have to really think about how to absorb this and incorporate it into my thinking. We're now in a fuzzy, unwritten realm above and outside our behavioral guidelines, and that may be hard to navigate.
I don't want to offend unnecessarily, but if even situations where it can't be avoided (there are always people who will take offense at the most reasonable comment to them, and that is their fault, not mine or others who are dealing with them) in the process of trying to explain policies and defend Wikipedia isn't allowed for me, while being allowed for everyone else, well, it's difficult to see any fairness or justice in that. Why should I get in trouble for something that is their fault?
I'm not rejecting your advice. I value it. It's just a hard pill to swallow, and this strikes at my honor and self-worth. Oddly, using fuck repeatedly and very boldly has been officially tried here in a high profile way and is allowed for certain editors, but me, trying to be very civil and constructive, is seen as a horrible person worthy of sanction. The double standard is rancorous. Do you see what I mean? Please help me understand.
My occasional lack of total wisdom and perfect tact is seen as a very evil thing for which I'm punished, while much worse from most other editors who do it regularly (for example incivility or personalizing disputes) is dealt with in the standard way with an admonishment on the talk page to "discuss content, not editors", and everyone then goes on with the discussion, and there is no sanction of any kind. This happens all the time.
Stop and think about why I'm in this situation. It's not because I'm worse than others, but because someone who hounded and pursued me to get me in trouble, took me immediately and directly to the top drama board three times, which is a serious abuse of the board, and the last time for something which did not even involve him. The admins didn't even think I should be sanctioned because they could see where the real problem was, but I got this special type of sanction that is now, quite apparently, worse than regular sanctions which are easier to understand. Now my every move is scrutinized and I'm in constant jeopardy for being imperfect. Is this fair? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You're being way too defensive. You must drop the stick on accusing others and feeling that you are unfairly targeted. That is precisely the kind of behaviour that Awilley cautioned you against. Dozens of people have pointed out your tendency to make assumptions of other editors' motives or competence, or to patronize them, or to feel offended, or to being on a crusade to right great wrongs in the sacred name of the Truth. I know it's hard to see the beam in your own eyes, but try this: sit comfortably and pick a few comments at random from your contribution history over the last three years, on article and user talk pages. Read them aloud, and see how argumentative and self-righteous you appear.
Perhaps you need a break. — JFGtalk 05:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You're right, and that's why I think that the wording in Awilley's sanction is quite appropriate, and why I've taken it to heart. It's a civility-type sanction, and that's always a good idea. I have indeed offended some people, and for that I'm sorry. Tact has never been my strong point. I'll just have to play down my talk page interactions. Does that sound like a good place to start? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Excellent! Good luck. — JFGtalk 13:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Trump's current foreign policy treatment of Russia and Putin
Saving some useful sources here.
Now that the main Russian interference and Mueller investigations have ended, many smaller parts are still ongoing at the state attorneys general level. Whether there is a continuing ultra-secret FBI investigation is unknown to the public, as it should be, but I doubt it for the following reason. Trump's DOJ controls these things and will be able to squash any further investigations at the FBI. In effect, the FBI is blocked from protecting us from the ongoing Russian interference. Strzok did an excellent job as head of the FBI's counterespionage efforts, but he was a threat to Russian interference and he's gone. (David Archey replaced him.) This is all consistent with Trump's current foreign policy treatment of Russia and Putin. The latest proof is Trump's 1 1/2 hour phone call with Putin where Trump didn't even broach the subject except to call Russian interference in the election a "hoax". When he denies what has been proven to have happened and is ongoing, he is treating Russian interference as an acceptable and welcome help from America's enemy to keep him in power. What's the point of holding elections if we can't trust them?[10][11][12][13] -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Speaking in historical context, one can never blame a single man for everything, even such as, for example, Joseph Stalin. The president was elected by American people, and they will likely re-elect him again. And BTW, one of characters by Guy de Maupassant argued that the crowd or ordinary people will always make wrong choice during free elections (hence he argued for a political system where almost nothing will depend on the elected officials). My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
There is much truth there. Democracy stops working when some of these things happen, as now: political corruption (big money and lobbyists corrupt it); the separation of powers is broken; one party is not doing its duty to serve the people and not the president; gerrymandering ensures that one party always wins, even when they get far fewer votes than the other party; manipulation of voter roles and voter disenfranchisement; courts are packed to serve one party and not to serve justice, etc. You get the picture. When democracy is healthy and voters really have the power and are properly represented, it works great. Denmark has such a system. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Even JFK cheated to get into office. They all cheat and the better cheaters win. They all believe the cheating ultimately benefits the country, and they all rationalize the cheating as "ends justify means". Stop pretending American politics is a battle between Good and Evil along party lines. More accurately, stop believing that. It's not true, and that means it's not helpful. I'd say exactly the same thing to a Republican using the reverse of that faulty reasoning, if I thought it might do some good. ―Mandruss☎ 00:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, cheating is nothing new, and some of the earliest politicians and presidents were very sneaky and would run circles around many of our modern ones. What's different now, to the best of my knowledge, is that a President and his administration has never before sought and accepted help from the nation's foremost foreign enemy. This is different, as it gives the enemy myriad blackmail angles and ways to manipulate and control what happens. Also, Trump is not even stopping the interference or admitting it happened. He calls it a "hoax". Trump should have done what Obama did when he found out what Russia was doing. Obama told Putin to stop it and punished them with sanctions, and Trump should have gotten on the phone and said "Stop it. I will not accept your help. Get lost." Even now he won't do it. Instead Trump denied it happened and tried to lift the sanctions as soon as he was elected. Recently he lifted the sanctions on Deripaska. No, this whole situation is very different from any kind of cheating we've ever seen before.
I'm not sure why you think that I think it's all "a battle between Good and Evil along party lines." I think anyone who cheats is wrong to do it, and any party who disenfranchises voters and discourages voters from voting is wrong, and any party who accepts help from the enemy is acting traitorously and opening themselves up to blackmail. I'll take the other side, regardless of which one. Neither side is perfect or completely clean. Sometimes the Dems are more wrong, and sometimes the Repubs are more wrong. I think we can agree on that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That's your view of the situation and you're entitled to it as we all are. Just don't believe it's objective truth, since objective truth is pure illusion. The difference is important, since it affects how we edit Wikipedia. A belief that Wikipedia policy is sufficient to protect the encyclopedia from that "objective truth" mind-set is simply false, resulting from a failure to understand the considerable capacity of the human mind to deceive itself. ―Mandruss☎ 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't even know what "your [my] view" refers to, but I have long said that there is no limit to the capacity for humans to deceive, be deceived, and deceive themselves. We tend to believe that which we wish to be true, and that is a fatal flaw. Never believe that something is true because you think it. That's what's really wrong with the Boyzone song "No Matter What": "No matter what they tell us. No matter what they do. No matter what they teach us. What we believe is true." That's utter BS. (Yes, I know it's an emotional love song, so maybe we should give them a break. )
The scientific mindset, from which I come, deals with this flaw head-on by habitually using the skeptical approach to new information, especially if it's unusual. Doubt it, double-check it, etc. I do depend on RS to help me, and if they get it wrong, then I will likely get it wrong too, but since they self-correct fairly quickly, I get saved.
That's also why I won't habitually read right-wing sources, as research has shown that they tend to share fake news more often than left-wing sources, perpetuate such stories, self-correct much less, and right-wingers tend to seek out such misinformation much more than left-wingers. Our Fake news article has some pretty shocking statistics about this.
The left-wing has no such systemic problem. That doesn't mean that left-wing sources never get it wrong, or occasionally share a fake news story, but they self-correct very quickly, often because other left-wing sources criticize them. Right-wing sources don't criticize each other in this way, at least not as often.
Another important difference is the use of fact-checkers. Trump told his followers not to trust fact-checkers or RS, while left-wingers use them all the time. That's a significant difference.
In summary, since we are all prone to self-deception, regardless of our political standpoints, it is even more important to stay as close to RS as possible and not read unreliable sources (except for research). -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you still blind? In November 2018, The Guardian falsely claimed that Manafort had visited Assange multiple times, and they still haven't retracted the information in spite of general backlash. The incident was called the "biggest gaffe of the year". How's that for a left-wing publication correcting the record? And of course Buzzfeed published the Steele Dossier, which every other news outlet didn't want to touch, and has led to two years of wasted energy. How about when Gawker smeared Hulk Hogan? Have they apologized before being sued out of existence? Really, if you think left-wing papers are any less dishonest than right-wing papers, you are buried deep deep in your echo chamber. — JFGtalk 03:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Read those statistics I mentioned. They are in our Fake news article. What I wrote are facts, and yes, there are unfortunate exceptions, but when it comes to factual accuracy and relationship to fake news, there is a huge difference between left- and right-wing sources and audiences They are very different. I suspect much of it has to do with the fact that left-wingers tend to be better educated and use fact-checkers. Those too are facts, but there are also exceptions to that. There are plenty of well-educated right-wingers.
That's really sad about The Guardian, and a good example of the exception that proves the rule. I don't know, but they may have information which can't be released which convinces them that it is still true, so it's a question of integrity for them. Their story has not been proven wrong, just as the stories about Cohen being in Prague and Trump accepting (not paying) the offered prostitutes in Moscow. None of those stories have been proven wrong. We just don't know. The Mueller Report does confirm that a Georgian business associate of Cohen's was communicating with Cohen about compromising tapes of Trump, and he said that he had "stopped the flow of tapes" from Russian (which he told Mueller were compromising tapes), which confirms that Russians do have some sort of tapes on Trump. (He tried to backtrack later, but his story makes no sense, as he did "stop the flow of tapes" and wasn't joking at the time.)
The release of the Steele dossier is in a totally different category. Buzzfeed made no claims that it was accurate, and they published it with a huge disclaimer. The judge backed up the justification for their release of the dossier, as it was in the public good to do so. Then, when the FBI investigated it, they found outside information which corroborated enough of it that they used it as their roadmap for the investigation. They were obligated to investigate its claims to see if more of them were correct, and in some cases were unable to find more information. That is not a disproof, but a lack of confirmation. Ergo, they don't know if the claims are true, false, or somewhere in between.
Gawker...sensationlist rag? Hardly a typical left or right wing source, but then I never read it. Were they some sort of weird fringe left-wing counterweight to The National Enquirer on the right, which is a staunch Trump defender? I've never seen Gawker described as either left or right, and our article doesn't mention any bias either. They were sort of like The Hollywood Reporter, not exactly a RS, and not a source anymore, so a moot point. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations that support your point of view. Fair enough. I didn't mean to argue the left-vs-right evilness at length, or the education level of their readers, and I'll stop here. — JFGtalk 11:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Trump's DOJ works for him, and not for America. This kind of political opinion statement belongs on your blog or on Twitter, not on Wikipedia. See WP:POLEMIC. It's also a BLP violation, which is not allowed even on private user pages. — JFGtalk 21:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. Rather than provide the RS which say that, I'll just completely remove it. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, while I've "got you on the line," I may not participate much in the current discussions at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Other eyes can look at it and do the work of sorting it out. I have never contributed very much to that article anyway, so editors with more experience there might do it better. I still reserve the right to participate if I feel the desire, but right now I feel a bit burned out on that article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand the feeling. This timeline is already overwhelming in length, scope and detail, and it is now being expanded with all kinds of minutiae from the Mueller Report. I'm not sure it will ever be reduced to something actually informative to readers. — JFGtalk 00:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I think the list is extremely informative. I found a few interesting details after looking for a few minutes. This is not a wall of text, but a list. If a list is well organized, the size does not really matter. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Large size is less of a problem with a list than with a prose article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, big pages are fine if they are properly structured. It does not mean that unimportant content should be kept. A couple of comments above by someone else brought my attention. They all cheat and the better cheaters win [implicitly implying that nothing was changed in US politics]. No, there was never nothing like the today's situation in US politics. Stop pretending American politics is a battle between Good and Evil along party lines. That sounds right, but as long as politicians act themselves along the "party lines", they will and should be treated by electorate along the party lines. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Make the goal accuracy while adhering strictly to NPOV, NEWSORG and RECENTISM. BR, I know you acted in GF and took what MSM reported at face value. I think we've all learned a valuable lesson in retrospect. Glance back to when MelanieNnominated the article at AfD. Hindsight is 20-20 vision but retrospect helps us learn from our mistakes. MelanieN was right. The concerns I expressed May 20, 2018 and earlier...[14], [15] also speak volumes (and unfortunately, led to my t-ban from AP2 because I over-emphasized the need for accuracy & caution). I won't belabor the point and will end by saying that the editors who crafted our PAGs about NEWSORG, NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM were wise. I hope it serves to make us more cautious in the future and not let biases get in the way of accuracy and NPOV in our contributions. AtsmeTalk📧 01:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I would never dispute the need for following those policies and guidelines, but they would have zero effect on the fact that Wikipedia's rules also required that we create the Trump–Russia dossier. (BTW, I didn't create it.) We are required to document the sum total of human knowledge, and the whole dossier business was widely covered in RS, and it is mentioned every single day, even now. Like it or not, it's a very important document.
To quote you, editors are not allowed to "let biases get in the way of" documenting the existence, content, and controversies of such a widely reported document. You often mention those other PAG, but you keep forgetting the criteria for the creation of articles. We must also follow them, and if an article meets those criteria, it MUST not be AfDed. That would be an attack on policy. The article belongs here whether we like the subject or not.
We document many types of things here, including conspiracy theories, controversies, and scandals. Many editors might place the dossier in one or more of those categories, but the evidence shows that its main themes have been proven true and much of it has been backed up by other independent evidence. At the same time, one should always remember the cautionary message Buzzfeed wrote when they published it. It was never to be considered a finished product or necessarily all true. Much has been proven true, other parts are unproven, but nothing serious has been proven false. That is still the verdict from RS, including the Mueller Report. Even the Mueller Report's mention (Mueller did not investigate this matter) of Cohen's alleged visit to Prague is told in Cohen's inaccurate words (Cohen had indeed been to Prague much earlier). Mueller offers no independent verdict or further evidence on that matter. We still don't know for sure if it happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Funny to see some media called the dossier "Pissgate" in the early days.[16] It was indeed piss-poor spying if you ask me.[FBDB] — JFGtalk 22:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
That's hilarious! For some reason that one allegation, which is just one small part of the dossier, dominated the media. People love sensation. There are so many false descriptions of the allegation. There is nothing in it that indicates that Trump "paid" any prostitutes. We know for a fact that they were offered to him by someone with Emin Agalarov, and that he supposedly refused them. There is also nothing in the allegation to indicate that Trump participated, romped with, or was pissed on. The Mueller Report does confirm that compromising tapes of Trump are possessed by Russians, but we still don't know if this ever happened or exists as a tape. It's just titillating and grabs people's attention, likely because there is nothing in Trump's character or history that tells us he wouldn't do this. It would be totally in character. Comey was initially a disbeliever, but after talking to Trump, and having Trump lie repeatedly about it, Comey left the meetings with the belief that it might actually have happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
One should take it with a pinch of salt. Let's admit it: none of US administrations was tough on Russia or even on North Korea. The only difference: that president does ignore most of the intelligence. But Putin is different. According to Russian political commentators, he reads three folders which are prepared every day by SVR, FSB and FSO, respectively. No wonder, after reading all that "info" by spooks, he has very dark views on the intentions by his "adversaries" and get ready for a nuclear confrontation. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't recall any recent presidents being vulnerable to Russian blackmail in the way that Trump is vulnerable, and he doesn't seem to care that his past history with women, his business dealings, his alleged laundering of Russian oligarchs' money through real estate deals, etc. are all things Putin can, and do doubt is, using to pressure him. The very act of keeping his conversations with Trump secret automatically gives Putin the upper hand. That's why our presidents have always had their own translator along who can be a witness to everything that is said.
Even JFK and Bill Clinton, who were notorious womanizers, never gave any indication that they were being blackmailed by Russia, whereas everything about Trump's relationship with Putin raises such suspicions. Even our top intelligence chiefs have said that they believe he is acting as if he is being blackmailed by Putin.
Obama did react fairly quickly to the Russian interference by directly telling Putin to stop it, by enacting some pretty touch sanctions that hit the pocketbooks of Putin and many powerful Russians, by arresting, expelling, and charging numerous Russian spooks, and by confiscating Russian property in America. He confronted Putin head-on.
Trump eschews intelligence briefings, ridicules our intelligence agencies, and instead gets his views from Diamond and Silk, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox & Friends, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc, which is sometimes recycled Russian propaganda from RT.
Putin is indeed a foe to be feared. He is a hardcore, old style, Soviet Russian, very well-informed, an experienced super sleuth, and tactically far superior to any of our recent presidents, especially Trump. That's why presidents depend on and treasure the work of our intelligence agencies. Obama was known to study intelligence briefings very carefully and stay on top of such matters. He valued our intelligence agencies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I saw this. Perhaps one should not blame the previous administrations, even though they did not do anything effective. And yes, I agree that P. should be feared, but not because he is clever. According to Russian military commentators and others [17], he is definitely planning some action under coverage of the "nuclear umbrella", some kind of "nuclear poker". My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
That is indeed scary. Putin hates America and has said "I Could Destroy U.S. In Less Than 30 Min!" He recently said something about a new type of nuclear weapon. I have no doubt that Russia could pretty much level the most important parts of the USA. The results would create international pandemonium and a collapse of economies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, a sure sign of the rising totalitarianism and future wars is militarizing and brainwashing children (here is Russian version). Vitaly Mansky managed to shot a movie which documents, among other things, how this is done in North Korea [18]. Watching them is heartbreaking, especially for someone who was an object of such manipulations himself. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
See this. Just as many years ago, they are using "proxies", and even exactly the same proxies. How do you think North Korea had developed their nuclear weapons at the first place? My very best wishes (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Crossfire
No need to send email, I already know what happened to the investigation as I had stated in edit comment and on talk page. The Special counsel investigation, is specific to the Special Counsel investigation, it does not inherit the names of previous FBI investigations that were absorbed into it. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Minor barnstar
Thank you for defending the Timeline. X1\ (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
X1\, you're very welcome. It is one of the places where we have good information that can be used in a needed article, Investigation(s) into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, or something like that. It's rather strange we don't have that article. Instead, we have that information spread around in (at least) these lists and articles:
The needed article could be created quite quickly with information copied from those articles, using proper attribution. Much of the work has been done.
Currently, this effort is beginning at Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which seems to be a good faith effort, but with the wrong title. The title should be something along the lines of what I suggest above. We have always referred to the topic by what RS call it, which is nearly always the Russia investigation, or some variation on that theme.
To illustrate the proper way to name such an article, we would never name an article after the code-name used during the secret developmental phase of a product. We'd name it after the product. If Ford's creative team for the Mustang had code-named their secretive work Operation Pony Car, we would certainly mention that fact in the article named Ford Mustang, and then we'd make Operation Pony Car a redirect, as Operation Crossfire Hurricane used to be. Please take a look and help develop that article, and also, if you agree, try to influence a title change. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
You are more versed in this subject than I am. It is fast moving topic. I am not up on the details at "Operation Crossfire Hurricane". When I first saw the article, I was in agreement with your sentiments of See Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). But if it is going to stay ... X1\ (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
news analysis
Your perspective on this seems pretty reasonable to me, except that (i) the policy seems to disagree with you, since it says (as I read it anyway) that these pieces are not to be relied on as reliable sources for unattributed statements of fact, and (ii) it's in practice going to be very hard to gain a consensus on what is opinion and what is fact. As you know, I'm interested in whether we can rely on this sort of piece in the case of information about "Spygate". A central example: we rely substantially on these pieces in characterizing Spygate as a conspiracy theory. Now, to me, that seems like a controversial opinion. But I imagine that others will disagree with me. Thoughts? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
At least you understood my proposal
I'm beginning to wonder if some of our ArbCom members don't realize or perhaps don't remember what's in their own language regarding what counts, and what is sanctionable. AtsmeTalk📧 16:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a hard time even finding when I have gotten a DS notice! I wish it was easier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Save what Rob explained - start with "View history" --> "Filter revisions" --> type in "discretionary sanctions alert" to the tag filter. Here is yours. AtsmeTalk📧 21:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks so much. I have to learn to use those filters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I've found that (after the first use) I don't have to remember or type the words "discretionary sanctions alert". I just type "d" and I get a drop-down list containing "discretionary sanctions alert", which I can then select using down-arrow and Enter. All that's required is that I remember the letter "d". This may be local to my browser (Firefox), but I doubt it. Like many things, this is quite simple after the first couple of uses. ―Mandruss☎ 23:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox right now, but that didn't work. I also tried with the first letter capitalized, and that didn't work. Atsme's version worked fine. I'll just have to remember it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Have you entered the full thing manually (and clicked the "Show revisions" button) once? That's necessary to get the phrase added to the drop-down list. ―Mandruss☎ 23:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I had. Did it again now, and still didn't work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I see. Well I'm fairly confident it's a matter of some option in Wikipedia or Firefox, but I don't know where it is. I used that search so infrequently that I couldn't remember the exact tag and had to go find the instructions again each time (which I didn't feel was an undue burden itself, rather just an inconvenience that required a bit of resourcefulness and self-sufficiency of me). It's up to you whether it's worth your time in the long term to ask (at WP:VPT) how to make the drop-down list work. ―Mandruss☎ 23:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, the text which Atsme supplied seems to work, so I'll just have to remember that. IOW I won't, but I'll remember that Atsme was kind enough to teach me a good trick, and I can then search for her comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
BR, SN just pointed to a script that offers all kinds of perks I think you'll enjoy even more! User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb It's easy to add, too. Just click on install in the infobox, and the feature shows up in your TW pull down menu at the top of your page. Awesomeness!! AtsmeTalk📧 13:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That sounds nice. I don't see an install option in the infobox. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you have Twinkle checked in Preferences - Gadgets? It's Twinkle related. I'll be uploading what the box looks like - you'll see UNINSTALL at the bottom of the box because I already installed the script and when I get ready to shed it, I'll just click on uninstall. When you go there, you should see INSTALL. I'm in the process of uploading a screen capture of it now. AtsmeTalk📧 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's checked off, but I don't recall that I use it much. Maybe for reverting vandalism. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
An article you should check out
I would suggest checking out the Wikipedia article on the Gab social network. A certain group of editors has been complaining on the talk page of the article for a while now that the article is biased[19][20][21][22] and even Gab themselves has echoed those claims[23]. I'm not saying I support these editors and Gab, I'm just saying that these editors have been complaining about this for a while now, so It would be nice if you could take a look at the article and those complaints and see what you think of the situation. X-Editor (talk) 18 May 2019, 04:18 (UTC)
It's now on my watchlist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: Thanks for checking out the article and putting it on your watchlist, but what do you think of some of the editors and Gab themselves claiming the article is biased? Do you think it is biased and what do you think of the article in general? X-Editor (talk) 18 May 2019, 04:47 (UTC)
You need to stop canvassing. R2 (bleep) 04:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
BR - re: this comment. I had to laugh a little with a bit of self-reflection because I've done the same thing from time to time - I'm referring to written text that might be misconstrued, and in this case, specifically the portion wherein you said, ...maybe an AP2 topic ban would be the best solution for everyone.... When I first read it, I thought oh no! BR wants everyone to be t-banned!! You might want to re-phrase it when you get a chance. AtsmeTalk📧 18:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
OMG! That's hilarious. Yes, I'll go back and rephrase that. Good catch. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
After looking at this, I am too sure there are behavior issues involved. I would not speculate why exactly he/they are doing this, but it does not really matter. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
Greetings BR. I feel that you are skirting dangerously close to your "no personal comments" sanction with this remark as part of your arguments in the ongoing DRN process: 123IP seems to be seriously confused, and hold illogical expectations, about the article, its format, and its purpose.[24] Do be careful. — JFGtalk 16:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand. To make sure we're on the same page, so to speak, let's review the relevant wording of the sanction:
"On Article Talk pages within the topic area, you may not make personal comments accusing editors or groups of editors of doing things like assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, being biased, or being uncivil. In other words you should basically just focus on article content instead of other users."
That DR page is not an article talk page, but a page where replies, where I was directly addressed, require the analysis of an editor's remarks, and such replies are expected and allowed as long as they are civil. Was I uncivil? The sanction applies only to article talk pages within the AP2 topic area, and is a civility-type sanction that essentially sanctions the slightest violation (by me, but no one else...) of the "comment on content, not editors" advice/warning.
Unless I have seriously misunderstood the current thread on that DR page, it is specifically about scope and behavior issues related to discussing that scope. I was responding to some confused/unrealistic/straw man/red herring remarks by 123IP and analyzing exactly how it didn't make sense. Is that really too much? How else can I do that, on a page designed for exactly that type of analysis and comment, without directly citing and commenting on an editor's comments? I don't recall being forbidden to participate on such pages, or that my sanction applies to them.
Awilley can vet this situation best. If I'm mistaken about the application of the sanction in this situation, I will, of course, strike my remarks, realizing that the repetitious harassment tactic used by the currently-silent editor to intimidate me and limit my participation at Wikipedia has worked well. They got what they wanted, even though numerous admins saw through their tactic and said that they, but not I, should be sanctioned. This tactic, reinforced by a sanction, has the effect of turning their occasional, but obsessive, harassment into non-stop harassment-by-proxy, as it now hangs over my head all the time, even on a DR page where the sanction doesn't apply. That's not right. If you placed yourself in my shoes, I think you might get some insight on how this sanction has far-reaching, and no doubt unintended, consequences, as it proxies for that editor by rewarding them for their harassment. A warning to avoid commenting on editors would have worked fine, and that was the recommendation. This is very discouraging and makes one wonder if life is worth this crap. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course, given that the "no personal comments" restriction only applies to article talk pages, and your comment was rather mild, there is no violation. I just wanted to remind you that your words are under scrutiny, so that you don't get carried away in another discussion and risk an actual sanction. I also do not think there is any conspiracy to silence or intimidate you. It's simply that you are very vocal, and various people will react the same way to things you say or opinions you assert. I see Awilley's sanction as a protective measure from yourself. Which should help you improve your interaction style and live a long and prosperous editing life. — JFGtalk 20:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I too see a potentially positive side of the sanction in that light, but a warning would have sufficed. BTW, this is an "actual sanction" that is logged. It's as real as handing out a murder conviction to a jaywalker. I'm now in prison. I'm branded.
Especially under the circumstances, the sanction rewarded disruptive and abusive behavior. It also has a more permanent branding effect which I can't escape. I am branded with a huge scarlet letter that brings me shame every single day. A bucket of shit was poured on me in public. It poisons my life, my self-image, and I lose face all the time. With my Asian cultural background (I'm Caucasian, but have a complex cross-generational upbringing in Asia), this sanction strikes deep.
The actions by my harasser were definitely designed to silence me, and this sanction serves that purpose by proxy. Other admins advised against a sanction, but it happened anyway. That it happened created a proxy relationship between my harasser and the admin. Unintended? No doubt, but the effect on me is the same. Even if my harasser had been indeffed, their proxy sanction on me would still be active here. This is no way to treat loyal long-time editors. It's an injustice I have difficulty living with and the shame and injustice pester real life for me. -- BullRangifer (talk)
I can sympathize with the feeling; aware of "face" in various East-Asian cultures. But most people don't see the sanction, they only see what you write. They will make a mental image of your person based on your exact words, not based on what an admin decided to brand you. Being careful with how you address others, and dialing down your prejudice, should become a habit, and you will have no problems at all. Good luck! — JFGtalk 00:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Question about Spygate
I felt like this was a little forum-ish to ask on the talk page, so I'm asking you here. You have said--and the Spygate article says--that Trump was referring to Halper in his May 22 tweet. Of course he knew that Halper was not a member of his campaign. So do you think that when he said "into the campaign" he was just lying? Or do you think he meant something else by "into the campaign" than "a member of the campaign"? For what it's worth, my view is that I have no idea what Trump was thinking when he wrote that. But I was curious what you would say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not always easy to know what he means because he doesn't always say what he means and usually doesn't mean what he says. His use of hyperbole, manipulative shading, and outright lies make up a disproportionately large percentage of all he says. Psychologists and social scientists who study lying and liars have placed him in a special category, as his lies are far more complex that other liars, that he lies far more than other deceptive people, and his lies are much more self-serving and harmful to others. He's beyond the beyond when it comes to deception. Fact checkers have never encountered a more deceptive person, and a new category of lies has been created because of him, and he's the only person who occupies the Bottomless Pinocchio category.
He says whatever will work at the moment. I suspect this was just a way to gin up a more sinister picture that would stoke the "deep state" conspiracy theory beliefs of his base, but I can't be sure. That's just the effect it had. It drew his followers closer to himself by making it seem he was being persecuted.
He couldn't very well say: "I was being surveilled because I and my associates have acted in myriad ways which create justified suspicions that my campaign is colluding with Russia (and we all lie about it) and that I am acting exactly like a Russian asset." That truth would not fly with his base as it would be an admission that all the investigations and surveillance were his own fault. No, he plays the "it's all their fault, I am innocent" game.
What do you think or guess he meant? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I really don't know. If I had to guess, I'd say that he was just not being careful, and he worded his tweet (a freaking tweet, after all) without thinking too hard about it. Maybe "into the campaign" sounded invasive in a way that he liked. I don't think it's very plausible that he was trying to trick anyone into thinking that Halper was a part of his campaign. But again, I really am not sure what he was thinking, and I also suspect that, if you could somehow get him to be totally honest with you, he himself may not know why he worded it just that way. All guesses on my part, though. I'm not sure.
I don't really see him as a bigger liar than other politicians. Prior to Trump, I would have said that almost every politician is a serial liar. So it's really hard to have a sense that he's worse than what came before in this respect. (I recognize he's unprecedented in other ways, of course.) Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, you don't have to rely on how you see him when it comes to lying. Fact checkers, scholars, and others have done that work for you, and it's as I have described above. I didn't make that up. It's from RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Like lots of people, I think there is ideology, politics, and bias that influence the RSs in our sense. It's particularly bad in recent years. Journalists and scholars are people too, and standards have been eroded for years. There's nothing to be done about this around here--we have to rely on them because they're all we have, and without that this place would be more of a thunderdome than it already is. But certainly when I form my own views, I'm not turning to Kessler or Bump or their ilk. I can think for myself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
While I consider Bump to be a pretty good journalist, Kessler is in a different category. He is a professional fact checker, so we don't really have any right to question his competence when it comes to rating statements into various categories of reliability, truthfulness, etc. He's the expert, and there are many others who come to the same conclusions regarding Trump. When I say "have the right", I mean that we don't have the competence to second guess experts like him, unless we are renowned experts with the same or better qualifications. Otherwise, we do well to learn from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
PS: I couldn't help but notice the discussion above. I just wanted to say that you seem like a nice person, and I have enjoyed our dialogue, even when we have disagreed. Thanks for being willing to talk with me, and for your efforts to improve wikipedia. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, too! I really appreciate this dialogue. It's a good thing to exchange information, learn from each other, and help each other. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
A little off topic on the spygate talkpage, so I thought I'd follow up here with a question that isn't meant to be challenging: Do you think that editor's judgments play any role in evaluating whether we should use an opinion source with attribution? Here's what I mean: if the NYT (for example) publishes an op-ed by some guy, does the fact that the the editors of the NYT decided to publish it make it more worthy as a source than it would have been if it had been published, say, in GQ? Or does the whole judgment of whether to use that opinion source have nothing to do with editors of the relevant publication, and instead rely only on the wikipedia editors' consensus about the status, qualifications, etc., of the author himself? That's what I guess I'm trying to understand about the policy at this point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I wish I could give you an authoritative and expert solution that always works, but it's usually done on a case-by-case basis, and when editors still can't agree on what to do, then it goes on up the chain to a place like RS/N. To avoid that time sink, it's often best to just compromise, and that often ends up working best, IOW no one is really satisfied, but they can live with it. That's often the sign of a good consensus. Everyone sacrifices a bit and progress is made in the general direction of a theoretical ideal state. If one has five demands and gets one or two of them, that's pretty good. Those who demand that one reach that ideal immediately don't last long here. Sometimes it's best and easiest to build a general structure so you have an article, and then fine tune it later toward perfection. Demanding perfection at every step of the way leads to headaches and disruption. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Do I recall correctly
...that you do some regular work correcting bare URLs, across the board, in all sorts of articles? If so, the Joanne Kelly article needs a bit of quick attention. If I am mis-recalling, it is just a case of no longer being able to assign the specific thing for which I hold you in high regard. (Please, if not able to address, forward to someone who can?) Also very sorry to hear that Campfire impacted you. Such an awful tragedy, I cannot even imagine being in its midst. Cheers, best wishes. 2601:246:C700:2DB2:7C61:8680:2C67:B888 (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Standard DS notification
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 shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Robert McClenon, I have received these before, so I don't know what this is about. I also don't understand your replies at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard as they don't address the issue in the thread I started. A comment needs to be restored, so please do that. Just put it in 123IP's section. That's all I'm asking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: More to the point, he received one in January, well within the one-year interval stated in the rules, and that would have been easily determined using the standard procedure. ―Mandruss☎ 15:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
OMG! Talk about starting a totally unnecessary fire. Why all the disruption? Please, just do your job. It's one simple cleanup edit you are allowed to do. Is it really that hard? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
R2, sorry for the delay. I don't find anything on the talk page or archives, so it might refer to a discussion on some other vaccine-related article. Ask him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Membership renewal
You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.
But i used politico townhall the economist etc. Wich are all reliable sources. Some even more reliable than links already present
The links present claim its a conspiracy theory "yet provide no evidence of this claim" while the links i provided add context and evidence of the term "deep state" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorman232 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Townhall and several other sources you provided are not RS. The New York Times is a RS. For more about this subject, study this non-partisan chart, then stick to the sources in the green and yellow boxes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
WJBscribe Arbitration Case Request
Hi BullRangifer, I'm Cameron11598 and I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks. At the direction of the committee I've removed part of your statement that referencing WP:WikiProject Women in Red as the case request is focused on the reversal of office actions. Please note this has been done as a clerk action and these statements should not be re-added nor my action reversed without prior approval of an Arbitration Committee Clerk or an Arbitrator. For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598(Talk) 17:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Fine with me. Carry on the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
123IP edit at archived DRN
A courtesy blanking has been used to stop this, a rather remarkable event.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would appear you would know more about this than I (previous interaction with you related, along with Onetwothreeip). Was my action accurate per your recollection (see my ES there)? X1\ (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it appears to be accurate. I'm surprised 123IP would even return to that issue. It's usually best to leave such things alone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, is (this) something you would be involved in at this point? X1\ (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Or/and, maybe MrClog, since this? X1\ (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
User:X1\ - I do not want to re-open any dispute that has already been closed. If there is an article content issue, discuss at an article talk page. If there is a conduct issue, take it to Arbitration Enforcement. If you have a specific concern, rather than just asking me whether I want to stir trouble, please explain what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
One thing that isn't necessary is for Robert to get involved. You did the right thing, and that should settle it. The archive is restored to its proper state after the improper deletion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Since this is a contentious matter regarding me, I really should have been notified. I will assume good faith that the failed template to notify me wasn't on purpose. I'm all for a faithful and complete archive of the discussion, but I was astonished to find that there was something in my summary that I never ever put there, and that I never would have intended to be put there or cause to be put there. The way it is now is simply not an archive of my summary, so I removed that paragraph. It looks completely bizarre that for most of it I'm actually summarising the dispute and then suddenly it seems I go into something completely unrelated, which is surely the intention. It's especially relevant if editors are going to continue linking to the archive of that dispute resolution attempt, as they have done so far. I have no idea why my attempts to condense the information at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections has deserved all these multiple instances of bullying from X1\, BullRangifer and My Very Best Wishes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You were given the opportunity to do the right thing with that comment back when that discussion was active. You chose not to do it. By "do the right thing" with it, I mean you could have placed it/let it remain in your comment section, which is the proper place for it, but add some qualifying words to add context so it didn't seem out of place. I was hoping you would do that. Now it's all water under the bridge and was forgotten until you tried to delete it from the archive. That's wasn't a good move.
I suggest you just forget it. It's not going to come back to bite you unless you pick it up and make a big deal out of it. That's what's starting now, and you can put out this fire by stopping all actions and discussions about the matter and walking away from it. Let the sleeping dog lie. We'll all respect you for doing that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all, you're the one who put it in my summary section, not me. That section was not at all the proper place for it since it had nothing to do with summarising the dispute and it had nothing to do with anything else I had said in that section. I repeatedly removed it from my section since I had never put it there and never wanted it there, but you seem to have kept on putting it back, for which I'm surprised you weren't at all sanctioned for.
I certainly didn't want this to become an issue, which is why I removed it myself. I thought that would be perfectly understandable and nobody else had to be bothered. Unfortunately this is becoming an issue since editors are now linking to the dispute resolution thread and are referring to it, so those words are very much visible and relevant. I wouldn't have even known that it was placed there again before it got archived unless the dispute resolution thread was being linked and used as evidence for whatever point someone was making, which was what brought me to the archive in the first place.
I think most of all it's quite clear that you'd rather not have your bizarre conduct on the dispute resolution thread exposed for what it's been. I honestly don't care about using it to demonstrate anything about you, and I've been avoiding naming you as the person who did this. I just want it removed since it's still being read and will likely continue to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Please provide diffs for where anybody is referring to that comment or the archive in a way that makes this a relevant issue per your comment ("Unfortunately this is becoming an issue since editors are now linking to the dispute resolution thread and are referring to it, so those words are very much visible and relevant."). Without that this is just kicking a dead horse and trying to start a fire. That wouldn't improve matters here at Wikipedia. We should all seek to de-escalate problems rather than escalate them. That would be seen as disruptive behavior. It's best to drop the stick. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That's not what I said is happening. I said that editors have been linking to the archive. I have no desire to argue about this and I'm all for dropping the stick, although I haven't picked it up. That paragraph needs to go from my summary though, I never put it there or gave my permission for it to be put there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Who has been linking to the archive, outside of things related to your deletion? If that's all, then we can just let this die a quiet death right now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
So you're agreeing that the paragraph should be removed from that summary section? It's pretty silly since it's nothing to do with summarising the dispute, so I certainly wouldn't have put it there. I don't see why it's relevant who has linked to it, but X1\ linked to the archive in the "Suggestion - splitting content" section of the talk page for the main Russian interference timeline article. I don't propose that people be banned from linking to the archive, it's just that the original version of my dispute summary as I wrote it should be restored. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No, it should always have been in your own section. That's what the section is for. No one else put their comments in other's sections. Your section is for much more than summarizing. It's also for commenting, responding to others, etc., IOW every single thing you write is supposed to go in your own section, and only there. Why don't you just drop this now? No harm is going to come of things staying as is. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't want this to be a discussion either, I was just clarifying since I wasn't notified originally. Suffice to say if I wanted it to be in my section, I would have put it there. Have a good day. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
ALLEGED interference? SMH!!
How is it possible that we allow people to edit political articles who ignore the following facts? They should be topic banned.
Allied foreign intelligence agencies were spying on Russians, not on the Trump campaign, and they overheard Russians discussing how the Trump campaign was illegally working with them to sabotage Hillary & steal the election. That alarmed our allies, as it should. What else should they have done but report it to the FBI? They did the right thing.
These editors reveal their lack of competence here:
SMH! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Sergei Millian
We don't mention Sergei Millian (Sergei Kukut) at all, and yet he has been identified as the Dossier's Source D (and E), and many RS have discussed him and his proven and unproven roles in the Trump-Russia affairs and dossier (as Source D/E). Articles which mention him by name in connection with the dossier (after the release of the dossier) and/or just as Source D/E (both before and after release of the dossier) are fair game in this article.
RS reveal that his Trumpian tendency to hyperbole and self-promotion have rendered him an unwitting "loose lips" witness, similar to Papadopoulos, Giuliani, etc. Such people are very useful witnesses, much to Trump's chagrin. Later, when their revealings are seen as embarrassing, they try to deny, downplay, and even scrub the information, but history usually reveals they have exposed facts that should have been kept hidden, at least from the viewpoint of the Trump administration. They have thus placed themselves firmly in the center of Mueller's net for potential witnesses.
There is likely enough for an article about him, so I'm including a few articles from before release of the dossier.
Hi, BR. About that essay-sized edit you were proposing to make to the dossier article (and I admit I didn't read all of it, and probably nobody did; it kind of defines TL/DR): I am willing to see if it can be trimmed down to a usable section in the article. Where do you propose I do that? Not at the talk page, certainly, but someplace where we can both work on it and talk about it. How about putting it in a user space draft under your own name? Might you consider first trying, yourself, to look at it with a critical eye toward trimming it?
P.S. Oh, I found it: it's in sandbox 5, right? Where we can see that it would add another 30 kb if added to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you got my ping, I assume. Please read the whole thing before you start. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
As you can see I have been working today on trying to trim some of the bloat from the article, which at 225 kb is much, much bigger than it should be. For comparison the entire Donald Trump article is 386 kb. There is a lot of unnecessary detail, and some redundancy because the same subject is discussed in several places. I'm inclined to continue working on that, a section at a time, and maybe tackle the conspiracy theories material later. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to keep something in mind when comparing article size. Trump has a million subarticles, whereas this is just one article to cover a very notable subject that's still mentioned every single day. It is the key and roadmap for the whole Russia investigation. Just keep that in mind. It's very important. Also try to save the references. Such BLP sensitive stuff must have multiple sources, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Otherwise, simplifying is often welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
How the dossier's allegations are related to proven reality
The dossier's main allegation of Russian interference to help Trump remains a proven fact.
Here's an attempted illustration of how the dossier's allegations are related to proven reality. A friend (a dossier source you can't name) tells you (Steele) they were visiting an uncle (a known Russian agent) on a certain day and quietly listened at the door as he told a known friend (a Trump campaigner alleged to be involved in suspicious activity) to "bury the loot in the park, beside the swings." (Later, the police can prove that your friend (they can't identify your friend in their surveillance video) and that known third person (Trump's campaigner) were indeed in that house with the uncle on that date. (House, date, occupants...all accurate.) Why was a Trump campaigner with a Russian agent on that date? It's a proven fact they were together then and there, but the campaigner tells conflicting stories about what they were doing, and is caught changing their story about the meeting.
This looks bad, so you (Steele) do the right thing and immediately go to the police (FBI) with that information. They say they don't know of any crime committed by the uncle's friend. They then go and dig up the park and find the loot from a robbery, one which they knew about but didn't know was committed by the uncle and their friend, until now.
The problem is that your friend is the only "witness", and he can't be found, ergo no one can connect the uncle to the crime, unless you identify your friend, whom you know will be killed if you do so, because the police have a mole who reports to these criminals. The evidence won't stand up in court. Therefore the police cannot, and do not, charge the uncle of a crime ("no collusion"), but they do place him (Carter Page) under surveillance because this isn't the first time he has been known to hang around with known criminals. The crime did occur. That much we know for certain.
Now, any reasonable person who hears this story (who was not an ally of your uncle and their criminal friend, and thus would defend them, no matter what crime they might commit, such as shooting someone on Fifth Avenue) would lend you (Steele) and your friend (the unnamed source) a lot of credence because they knew, before anyone else, that a crime had been committed, knew where the loot was buried, and knew who was involved. How else could they know without being good sources? (When it has been possible to examine Steele's stories and sources, they hold up to investigation. His information has nearly always been right. That's why he's had such success in his career and is highly respected.)
The crime was committed. Proven fact. Steele says that an unnamed source revealed that certain persons (he names in the dossier) planned that crime and stood behind it. Any logical person would connect the dots. Intelligence agencies who checked out some of the dossier's claims found some of the information to be accurate. This secret information was found to be accurate, so this increased the dossier's credence in their eyes, even while they remained skeptical of the ONE salacious claim (pee tape), a very small part of the dossier. Most of the claims are not salacious. These sources had advanced knowledge of crimes. They should be trusted, at least to some degree.
Trump supporters refuse to give any credence to the dossier, even though many of its allegations are proven true. They wouldn't even believe anything in the dossier if the name of the source was given, and a recheck of the information proved the story beyond a shadow of a doubt. (The source gets killed if this happens, and that reliable source of information no longer exists.)
I'm not certain if my illustration is entirely accurate, but you get the gist of it. The trustworthiness of a source is not dependent on their identity, but on their advanced knowledge of events later proven to be true.
Page's actions are largely analogous to the story above. We can't prove that the exact words in the dossier about what actually happened in those secret meetings between Page and Rosneft officials (which Page lied about) were spoken, but all external events tend to back up that the story in the dossier is very likely true: The GOP platform did indeed get changed; Manafort was indeed paid $12.7 million for his pro-Russian anti-Ukraine lobbying work; Rosneft was indeed liquidated and 19.5% was transferred to a secret Cayman Islands account; Trump did indeed try, as one of his very first actions, to lift the sanctions, and he has kept trying, and recently lifted the sanctions on companies formerly controlled by Deripaska; and Page did lie about it all and kept changing his story, and finally, under oath, partially affirmed it. All of this is public record in RS.
Here's the dilemma: The dossier describes the backstory. Should we trust that story? Logical people would tend to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The AdFontesMedia "Media Bias Chart" and how it rates sources
If you're interested in fact checking and evaluation of sources for accuracy and bias, check out both of these links. This happens to be the best media bias chart I know of:
"Most people don’t visit 40 sites about one story to compare bias and quality, but that’s one of the things we do here, so we hope it helps you get a better sense of the universe of reporting."
"Junk news (by which we mean anything falling in the hyper-partisan (-18 to +18) and beyond categories, and anything below 40 on our quality scale) mostly serves to satisfy people’s craving to be right and confirm their existing beliefs."
I like to regularly check the chart to ensure I only use the best sources and keep track of which are good for facts and which are good for opinions, noting that it's important to check both the left and right sides of the spectrum for how their bias is related to the facts. If their bias hasn't caused them to twist the facts and engage in whitewashing or propaganda, then they can still be used. Both sides are guilty of that at times, while at other times their bias leaves the facts intact. It's pretty fascinating. Have fun. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Mueller Report footnote about pee tape
Here is the Mueller Report footnote 112 (pages 27 and 28, Volume 2) to content about Comey's briefing of Trump about the pee tape:
112 Corney 1/7/17 Memorandum, at 1-2; Corney 11/15/17 302, at 3. Corney's briefing included the Steele reporting's unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On October 30, 20 I6, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there' s anything else. Just so you know " 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said "tapes" referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. Rtskhiladze 4/4/ l 8 30 2, at 12. Coh en said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhilad ze. Cohen 9/12/18 302 , at 13. Rts khiladz e said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen. Rtskhiladze 5/ l0/18 302, at 7.
Rtskhiladze has tried to backtrack his comments, but he treated them as real when he "stopped the flow". He stopped something. That's what he told Cohen and Mueller. To later say it was rumors, etc, is disingenuous.
POSSIBLY USEFUL SOURCES:
This one could be used in the Trump-Russia dossier article:
The opinions are all over the map, some ignoring the disconnect between Rtskhiladze's backtracking and what he actually did (stopped the flow of embarrassing tapes for Cohen, whose job it was to bury this type of thing):
Yes, I have. It's listed above. The coverage in RS is all over the map. I hope more sources analyze this and things settle down a bit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Trump's foreign policy treatment of Russia and Putin
Saving some useful sources here.
Now that the main Russian interference investigation and Mueller investigation have ended, many smaller parts are still ongoing at the state attorneys general level. Whether there is a continuing ultra-secret FBI investigation is unknown to the public, as it should be, but I doubt it for the following reason. Trump's DOJ controls these things and will be able to squash any further investigations at the FBI. In effect, the FBI is blocked from protecting us from the ongoing Russian interference. Strzok did an excellent job as head of the FBI's counterespionage efforts, but he was a threat to Russian interference and he's gone. (David Archey replaced him.) This is all consistent with Trump's current foreign policy treatment of Russia and Putin. The latest proof is Trump's 1 1/2 hour phone call with Putin where Trump didn't even broach the subject except to call Russian interference in the election a "hoax". When he denies what has been proven to have happened and is ongoing, he is treating Russian interference as an acceptable and welcome help from America's enemy to keep him in power. What's the point of holding elections if we can't trust them?[25][26][27][28] -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Speaking in historical context, one can never blame a single man for everything, even such as, for example, Joseph Stalin. The president was elected by American people, and they will likely re-elect him again. And BTW, one of characters by Guy de Maupassant argued that the crowd or ordinary people will always make wrong choice during free elections (hence he argued for a political system where almost nothing will depend on the elected officials). My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
There is much truth there. Democracy stops working when some of these things happen, as now: political corruption (big money and lobbyists corrupt it); the separation of powers is broken; one party is not doing its duty to serve the people and not the president; gerrymandering ensures that one party always wins, even when they get far fewer votes than the other party; manipulation of voter roles and voter disenfranchisement; courts are packed to serve one party and not to serve justice, etc. You get the picture. When democracy is healthy and voters really have the power and are properly represented, it works great. Denmark has such a system. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Even JFK cheated to get into office. They all cheat and the better cheaters win. They all believe the cheating ultimately benefits the country, and they all rationalize the cheating as "ends justify means". Stop pretending American politics is a battle between Good and Evil along party lines. More accurately, stop believing that. It's not true, and that means it's not helpful. I'd say exactly the same thing to a Republican using the reverse of that faulty reasoning, if I thought it might do some good. ―Mandruss☎ 00:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, cheating is nothing new, and some of the earliest politicians and presidents were very sneaky and would run circles around many of our modern ones. What's different now, to the best of my knowledge, is that a President and his administration has never before sought and accepted help from the nation's foremost foreign enemy. This is different, as it gives the enemy myriad blackmail angles and ways to manipulate and control what happens. Also, Trump is not even stopping the interference or admitting it happened. He calls it a "hoax". Trump should have done what Obama did when he found out what Russia was doing. Obama told Putin to stop it and punished them with sanctions, and Trump should have gotten on the phone and said "Stop it. I will not accept your help. Get lost." Even now he won't do it. Instead Trump denied it happened and tried to lift the sanctions as soon as he was elected. Recently he lifted the sanctions on Deripaska. No, this whole situation is very different from any kind of cheating we've ever seen before.
I'm not sure why you think that I think it's all "a battle between Good and Evil along party lines." I think anyone who cheats is wrong to do it, and any party who disenfranchises voters and discourages voters from voting is wrong, and any party who accepts help from the enemy is acting traitorously and opening themselves up to blackmail. I'll take the other side, regardless of which one. Neither side is perfect or completely clean. Sometimes the Dems are more wrong, and sometimes the Repubs are more wrong. I think we can agree on that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That's your view of the situation and you're entitled to it as we all are. Just don't believe it's objective truth, since objective truth is pure illusion. The difference is important, since it affects how we edit Wikipedia. A belief that Wikipedia policy is sufficient to protect the encyclopedia from that "objective truth" mind-set is simply false, resulting from a failure to understand the considerable capacity of the human mind to deceive itself. ―Mandruss☎ 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't even know what "your [my] view" refers to, but I have long said that there is no limit to the capacity for humans to deceive, be deceived, and deceive themselves. We tend to believe that which we wish to be true, and that is a fatal flaw. Never believe that something is true because you think it. That's what's really wrong with the Boyzone song "No Matter What": "No matter what they tell us. No matter what they do. No matter what they teach us. What we believe is true." That's utter BS. (Yes, I know it's an emotional love song, so maybe we should give them a break. )
The scientific mindset, from which I come, deals with this flaw head-on by habitually using the skeptical approach to new information, especially if it's unusual. Doubt it, double-check it, etc. I do depend on RS to help me, and if they get it wrong, then I will likely get it wrong too, but since they self-correct fairly quickly, I get saved.
That's also why I won't habitually read right-wing sources, as research has shown that they tend to share fake news more often than left-wing sources, perpetuate such stories, self-correct much less, and right-wingers tend to seek out such misinformation much more than left-wingers. Our Fake news article has some pretty shocking statistics about this.
There is no documentation that the left-wing has such a systemic problem. That doesn't mean that left-wing sources never get it wrong, or occasionally share a fake news story, but they self-correct very quickly, often because other left-wing sources criticize them. Right-wing sources don't criticize each other in this way, at least not as often, instead they copy and amplify the falsehood.
Another important difference is the use of fact-checkers. Trump told his followers not to trust fact-checkers or RS, while left-wingers use them all the time. That's a significant difference.
In summary, since we are all prone to self-deception, regardless of our political standpoints, it is even more important to stay as close to RS as possible and not read unreliable sources (except for research). -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you still blind? In November 2018, The Guardian falsely claimed that Manafort had visited Assange multiple times, and they still haven't retracted the information in spite of general backlash. The incident was called the "biggest gaffe of the year". How's that for a left-wing publication correcting the record? And of course Buzzfeed published the Steele Dossier, which every other news outlet didn't want to touch, and has led to two years of wasted energy. How about when Gawker smeared Hulk Hogan? Have they apologized before being sued out of existence? Really, if you think left-wing papers are any less dishonest than right-wing papers, you are buried deep deep in your echo chamber. — JFGtalk 03:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Read those statistics I mentioned. They are in our Fake news article. What I wrote are facts, and yes, there are unfortunate exceptions, but when it comes to factual accuracy and relationship to fake news, there is a huge difference between left- and right-wing sources and audiences They are very different. I suspect much of it has to do with the fact that left-wingers tend to be better educated and use fact-checkers. Those too are facts, but there are also exceptions to that. There are plenty of well-educated right-wingers.
That's really sad about The Guardian, and a good example of the exception that proves the rule. I don't know, but they may have information which can't be released which convinces them that it is still true, so it's a question of integrity for them. Their story has not been proven wrong, just as the stories about Cohen being in Prague and Trump accepting (not paying) the offered prostitutes in Moscow. None of those stories have been proven wrong. We just don't know. The Mueller Report does confirm that a Georgian business associate of Cohen's was communicating with Cohen about compromising tapes of Trump, and he said that he had "stopped the flow of tapes" from Russian (which he told Mueller were compromising tapes), which confirms that Russians do have some sort of tapes on Trump. (He tried to backtrack later, but his story makes no sense, as he did "stop the flow of tapes" and wasn't joking at the time.)
The release of the Steele dossier is in a totally different category. Buzzfeed made no claims that it was accurate, and they published it with a huge disclaimer. The judge backed up the justification for their release of the dossier, as it was in the public good to do so. Then, when the FBI investigated it, they found outside information which corroborated enough of it that they used it as their roadmap for the investigation. They were obligated to investigate its claims to see if more of them were correct, and in some cases were unable to find more information. That is not a disproof, but a lack of confirmation. Ergo, they don't know if the claims are true, false, or somewhere in between.
Gawker...sensationlist rag? Hardly a typical left or right wing source, but then I never read it. Were they some sort of weird fringe left-wing counterweight to The National Enquirer on the right, which is a staunch Trump defender? I've never seen Gawker described as either left or right, and our article doesn't mention any bias either. They were sort of like The Hollywood Reporter, not exactly a RS, and not a source anymore, so a moot point. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations that support your point of view. Fair enough. I didn't mean to argue the left-vs-right evilness at length, or the education level of their readers, and I'll stop here. — JFGtalk 11:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Trump's DOJ works for him, and not for America. This kind of political opinion statement belongs on your blog or on Twitter, not on Wikipedia. See WP:POLEMIC. It's also a BLP violation, which is not allowed even on private user pages. — JFGtalk 21:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. Rather than provide the RS which say that, I'll just completely remove it. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, while I've "got you on the line," I may not participate much in the current discussions at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Other eyes can look at it and do the work of sorting it out. I have never contributed very much to that article anyway, so editors with more experience there might do it better. I still reserve the right to participate if I feel the desire, but right now I feel a bit burned out on that article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand the feeling. This timeline is already overwhelming in length, scope and detail, and it is now being expanded with all kinds of minutiae from the Mueller Report. I'm not sure it will ever be reduced to something actually informative to readers. — JFGtalk 00:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I think the list is extremely informative. I found a few interesting details after looking for a few minutes. This is not a wall of text, but a list. If a list is well organized, the size does not really matter. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Large size is less of a problem with a list than with a prose article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, big pages are fine if they are properly structured. It does not mean that unimportant content should be kept. A couple of comments above by someone else brought my attention. They all cheat and the better cheaters win [implicitly implying that nothing was changed in US politics]. No, there was never nothing like the today's situation in US politics. Stop pretending American politics is a battle between Good and Evil along party lines. That sounds right, but as long as politicians act themselves along the "party lines", they will and should be treated by electorate along the party lines. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Make the goal accuracy while adhering strictly to NPOV, NEWSORG and RECENTISM. BR, I know you acted in GF and took what MSM reported at face value. I think we've all learned a valuable lesson in retrospect. Glance back to when MelanieNnominated the article at AfD. Hindsight is 20-20 vision but retrospect helps us learn from our mistakes. MelanieN was right. The concerns I expressed May 20, 2018 and earlier...[29], [30] also speak volumes (and unfortunately, led to my t-ban from AP2 because I over-emphasized the need for accuracy & caution). I won't belabor the point and will end by saying that the editors who crafted our PAGs about NEWSORG, NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM were wise. I hope it serves to make us more cautious in the future and not let biases get in the way of accuracy and NPOV in our contributions. AtsmeTalk📧 01:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I would never dispute the need for following those policies and guidelines, but they would have zero effect on the fact that Wikipedia's rules also required that we create the Trump–Russia dossier. (BTW, I didn't create it.) We are required to document the sum total of human knowledge, and the whole dossier business was widely covered in RS, and it is mentioned every single day, even now. Like it or not, it's a very important document.
To quote you, editors are not allowed to "let biases get in the way of" documenting the existence, content, and controversies of such a widely reported document. You often mention those other PAG, but you keep forgetting the criteria for the creation of articles. We must also follow them, and if an article meets those criteria, it MUST not be AfDed. That would be an attack on policy. The article belongs here whether we like the subject or not.
We document many types of things here, including conspiracy theories, controversies, and scandals. Many editors might place the dossier in one or more of those categories, but the evidence shows that its main themes have been proven true and much of it has been backed up by other independent evidence. At the same time, one should always remember the cautionary message Buzzfeed wrote when they published it. It was never to be considered a finished product or necessarily all true. Much has been proven true, other parts are unproven, but nothing serious has been proven false. That is still the verdict from RS, including the Mueller Report. Even the Mueller Report's mention (Mueller did not investigate this matter) of Cohen's alleged visit to Prague is told in Cohen's inaccurate words (Cohen had indeed been to Prague much earlier). Mueller offers no independent verdict or further evidence on that matter. We still don't know for sure if it happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Funny to see some media called the dossier "Pissgate" in the early days.[31] It was indeed piss-poor spying if you ask me.[FBDB] — JFGtalk 22:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
That's hilarious! For some reason that one allegation, which is just one small part of the dossier, dominated the media. People love sensation. There are so many false descriptions of the allegation. There is nothing in it that indicates that Trump "paid" any prostitutes. We know for a fact that they were offered to him by someone with Emin Agalarov, and that he supposedly refused them. There is also nothing in the allegation to indicate that Trump participated in sex acts, romped with them, or was pissed on by them. The Mueller Report does confirm that compromising tapes of Trump are possessed by Russians, but we still don't know if this Moscow hotel incident ever happened or exists as a tape. It's just titillating and grabs people's attention, likely because there is nothing in Trump's character or history that tells us he wouldn't do this. It would be totally in character. Comey was initially a disbeliever, but after talking to Trump, and having Trump lie repeatedly about it, Comey left the meetings with the belief that it might actually have happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
One should take it with a pinch of salt. Let's admit it: none of US administrations was tough on Russia or even on North Korea. The only difference: that president does ignore most of the intelligence. But Putin is different. According to Russian political commentators, he reads three folders which are prepared every day by SVR, FSB and FSO, respectively. No wonder, after reading all that "info" by spooks, he has very dark views on the intentions by his "adversaries" and get ready for a nuclear confrontation. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't recall any recent presidents being vulnerable to Russian blackmail in the way that Trump is vulnerable, and he doesn't seem to care that his past history with women, his business dealings, his alleged laundering of Russian oligarchs' money through real estate deals, etc. are all things Putin can, and do doubt is, using to pressure him. The very act of keeping his conversations with Trump secret automatically gives Putin the upper hand. That's why our presidents have always had their own translator along who can be a witness to everything that is said.
Even JFK and Bill Clinton, who were notorious womanizers, never gave any indication that they were being blackmailed by Russia, whereas everything about Trump's relationship with Putin raises such suspicions. Even our top intelligence chiefs have said that they believe he is acting as if he is being blackmailed by Putin.
Obama did react fairly quickly to the Russian interference by directly telling Putin to stop it, by enacting some pretty touch sanctions that hit the pocketbooks of Putin and many powerful Russians, by arresting, expelling, and charging numerous Russian spooks, and by confiscating Russian property in America. He confronted Putin head-on.
Trump eschews intelligence briefings, ridicules our intelligence agencies, and instead gets his views from Diamond and Silk, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox & Friends, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc, which is sometimes recycled Russian propaganda from RT.
Putin is indeed a foe to be feared. He is a hardcore, old style, Soviet Russian, very well-informed, an experienced super sleuth, and tactically far superior to any of our recent presidents, especially Trump. That's why presidents depend on and treasure the work of our intelligence agencies. Obama was known to study intelligence briefings very carefully and stay on top of such matters. He valued our intelligence agencies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I saw this. Perhaps one should not blame the previous administrations, even though they did not do anything effective. And yes, I agree that P. should be feared, but not because he is clever. According to Russian military commentators and others [32], he is definitely planning some action under coverage of the "nuclear umbrella", some kind of "nuclear poker". My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
That is indeed scary. Putin hates America and has said "I Could Destroy U.S. In Less Than 30 Min!" He recently said something about a new type of nuclear weapon. I have no doubt that Russia could pretty much level the most important parts of the USA. The results would create international pandemonium and a collapse of economies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, a sure sign of the rising totalitarianism and future wars is militarizing and brainwashing children (here is Russian version). Vitaly Mansky managed to shot a movie which documents, among other things, how this is done in North Korea [33]. Watching them is heartbreaking, especially for someone who was an object of such manipulations himself. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
See this. Just as many years ago, they are using "proxies", and even exactly the same proxies. How do you think North Korea had developed their nuclear weapons at the first place? My very best wishes (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
SIPPINONTECH, while I was away I see a whole spat occurred. I'm glad I missed it. There was a lot of bad faith commenting, some of the worst battleground behavior I've seen in a long time, participation from a known disruptive sock puppet/POV warrior who got blocked, and the discussion closed. All well and good. That was a disgrace.
You do deserve an answer to your question here. You wrote:
You need to be specific about which claims exactly you are referring to with respect to Halper. Because at the very least there is RS material that indicates that, in fact, Halper was spying on members of Trump's campaign.[1] The use of a covert government agent to collect information on people under an assumed name is spying. The FBI did use a covert government agent to collect information on Papadapolous, via Halper. So I'm not understanding which claims made by Trump, specifically, you claim are false... SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The article has a specific historic background which was notable enough to justify its creation. Since then Trump has broadened his use of the terms Spygate and spying to apply to any and all investigations and surveillance of him and his campaign members, even though they were all legal, necessary, and apolitical.
Regardless of whether one calls it an investigation, surveillance, or spying, the Trump campaign was indeed surveilled as part of the Russia investigation, as it should have been. All conspiracy theories contain some true elements, and this is the true part. Calling it "spying" is political rebranding, as admitted by Trump. It's deceptive, but whatever.
The investigations and surveillance were absolutely warranted when one studies their background. See here:
You are one of those who would like to co-opt the article for use as a broad discussion of "spying" and later misuses of the term Spygate. I obviously oppose that, and we're unlikely to change each other's minds, so I'll just do you the service of answering your question so you know what I meant. You may not agree, but at least you'll know where I'm coming from.
Trump made several false claims about Halper's work as an informant when he made contacts with three members of Trump's campaign. Those claims were as follows:
That a (as in ONE) spy was implanted in his 2016 presidential campaign. (Trump had just learned about Halper and tweeted about him without naming him.)
That it was for political purposes.
That the spy was "placed very early into my campaign", later defined as December 2015.
That a counterintelligence operation into the Trump campaign had been running since December 2015.
Facts:
No spy was "implanted" in the campaign.
It was part of the investigation into Russian interference, IOW for national security purposes.
Halper first started his investigations in July 2016.
The Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign's relations to the Russian election interference started on July 31, 2016. There was no investigation of the Trump campaign before this, only of Russians.
So far no evidence has been produced to support Trump's claims.
A whole different article should be created to deal with the whole subject of "spying". That would give you a much better forum for discussing the subject in depth. We don't co-opt existing articles which have a limited, notable, and specific scope. Instead, we create a new article. Go for it! -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This seems to me like a nice explanation of why some of Trump's claims related to this topic are unsubstantiated. It does not seem like an effective argument that they are either false or that they amount to a conspiracy theory. Nor, I suggest, can you find significant news reports that say these things. Several of his claims are unsubstantiated. That's it! Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, that brings us back to what RS say. They label his claims false, and you'll rarely find news sources saying it's a "conspiracy theory". That's something you'll find in news analysis and opinion articles, which are also RS. Therefore it's a red herring to want or expect us to source that to news sources, and I hope you stop doing that. That's not what they do. They just report the news, and sometimes also synthesize by juxtaposing the false statement with the contrary facts to show that the claim is indeed false. We can't make such a synthesis, but they can, and we're glad they do that work for us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
That view I hold about "news analysis" isn't a red herring. It's one view on the issue currently under discussion at RSN, it is a view shared by some editors around here, it is clearly rooted in the plain language of the RS policy, and, if it were consensus, it would directly undermine the sourcing for the current Spygate article. So it's highly relevant and not a red herring at all.
But suppose it's wrong and we take your view of the matter. Can you point to a news report that calls any of his claims false, as opposed to unsubstantiated, or "asserted without evidence" or some such? I am only aware of news analysis pieces like that. Also, I thought your view was that when analysis pieces state contentious or opinionated claims, they should be attributed. Is it your position that it is non contentious or controversial to call Trump's claims a conspiracy theory? If so, what an odd view! If not, then you should agree with me that those sources are being used inappropriately, since they're repeatedly used in the article unattributed. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
You ask "Is it your position that it is non contentious or controversial to call Trump's claims a conspiracy theory?" Not really, but that depends on one's views of Trump. No, seriously, I understand that it's seen as controversial by those who support Trump, so I wouldn't oppose attributing the statements. Normally, the fact that some editors find it controversial does not mean we need attribution, because that's a matter controlled by RS, IOW we'd need evidence that RS consider it controversial. I don't recall any of that type. (Fringe sources don't count.) But I'm a pragmatic guy who's willing to bend the rules to avoid too much friction here, so I often include sourcing to the lead, even if it's already in the body of an article, and I'll also add attribution to stop long and fruitless discussions. It's the type of compromise I often make. It's not really in harmony with policy, but it is in harmony with our attempts to be collegial here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that it's going to be rare to be able to source the view that some claim is contentious to RS. As I understood the view you and some others were proposing, it was that we have to make that determination on a case-by-case basis, not that we have to back that up with sources. And of course I think it's obvious that calling Spygate a conspiracy theory is contentious. But anyway, in this case, we do have some reliable sources that do not call it a conspiracy theory but say that this is what Democrats call it. That seems to me to come close to showing that such sources regard the claim as at least somewhat contentious. So maybe that will convince you? The problem with attribution in this case is that the claim occurs in the title of the article!
The larger point, as I'm now seeing it, is that the broad range of news reports do not present the theory the way that the current article does. They present it as an unsubstantiated theory that Trump put forward to discredit the Mueller investigation, and they do not call it false or a conspiracy theory. You can find this characterization over and over in RS. Then you have two news reports--one from LA Times, and one from Haaretz--that call it a conspiracy theory. And so the current article cherry picks. So it seems to me. Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things, and even to compromise. I don't want to bend the rules, for what it's worth, and I don't expect the article to read as a conservative would write it. I just want it to have the normal level of left-lean that you would expect for an article based on mainstream media sources! Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
When there is proof that no astronauts landed on the moon, only then do the Moon landing conspiracy theories cease to be conspiracy theories.
When there is proof that Halper was actually part of Trump's campaign; that he was planted there by Obama, not the FBI, and for political purposes, not national security reasons; and that he was placed very early into the campaign in 2015, only then does Spygate cease to be a conspiracy theory. None of that has changed. It's still false. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Question about Spygate
I felt like this was a little forum-ish to ask on the talk page, so I'm asking you here. You have said--and the Spygate article says--that Trump was referring to Halper in his May 22 tweet. Of course he knew that Halper was not a member of his campaign. So do you think that when he said "into the campaign" he was just lying? Or do you think he meant something else by "into the campaign" than "a member of the campaign"? For what it's worth, my view is that I have no idea what Trump was thinking when he wrote that. But I was curious what you would say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not always easy to know what he means because he doesn't always say what he means and usually doesn't mean what he says. His use of hyperbole, manipulative shading, and outright lies make up a disproportionately large percentage of all he says. Psychologists and social scientists who study lying and liars have placed him in a special category, as his lies are far more complex that other liars, that he lies far more than other deceptive people, and his lies are much more self-serving and harmful to others. He's beyond the beyond when it comes to deception. Fact checkers have never encountered a more deceptive person, and a new category of lies has been created because of him, and he's the only person who occupies the Bottomless Pinocchio category.
He says whatever will work at the moment. I suspect this was just a way to gin up a more sinister picture that would stoke the "deep state" conspiracy theory beliefs of his base, but I can't be sure. That's just the effect it had. It drew his followers closer to himself by making it seem he was being persecuted.
He couldn't very well say: "I was being surveilled because I and my associates have acted in myriad ways which create justified suspicions that my campaign is colluding with Russia (and we all lie about it) and that I am acting exactly like a Russian asset." That truth would not fly with his base as it would be an admission that all the investigations and surveillance were his own fault. No, he plays the "it's all their fault, I am innocent" game.
What do you think or guess he meant? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I really don't know. If I had to guess, I'd say that he was just not being careful, and he worded his tweet (a freaking tweet, after all) without thinking too hard about it. Maybe "into the campaign" sounded invasive in a way that he liked. I don't think it's very plausible that he was trying to trick anyone into thinking that Halper was a part of his campaign. But again, I really am not sure what he was thinking, and I also suspect that, if you could somehow get him to be totally honest with you, he himself may not know why he worded it just that way. All guesses on my part, though. I'm not sure.
I don't really see him as a bigger liar than other politicians. Prior to Trump, I would have said that almost every politician is a serial liar. So it's really hard to have a sense that he's worse than what came before in this respect. (I recognize he's unprecedented in other ways, of course.) Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, you don't have to rely on how you see him when it comes to lying. Fact checkers, scholars, and others have done that work for you, and it's as I have described above. I didn't make that up. It's from RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Like lots of people, I think there is ideology, politics, and bias that influence the RSs in our sense. It's particularly bad in recent years. Journalists and scholars are people too, and standards have been eroded for years. There's nothing to be done about this around here--we have to rely on them because they're all we have, and without that this place would be more of a thunderdome than it already is. But certainly when I form my own views, I'm not turning to Kessler or Bump or their ilk. I can think for myself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
While I consider Bump to be a pretty good journalist, Kessler is in a different category. He is a professional fact checker, so we don't really have any right to question his competence when it comes to rating statements into various categories of reliability, truthfulness, etc. He's the expert, and there are many others who come to the same conclusions regarding Trump. When I say "have the right", I mean that we don't have the competence to second guess experts like him, unless we are renowned experts with the same or better qualifications. Otherwise, we do well to learn from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
PS: I couldn't help but notice the discussion above. I just wanted to say that you seem like a nice person, and I have enjoyed our dialogue, even when we have disagreed. Thanks for being willing to talk with me, and for your efforts to improve wikipedia. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, too! I really appreciate this dialogue. It's a good thing to exchange information, learn from each other, and help each other. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
A little off topic on the spygate talkpage, so I thought I'd follow up here with a question that isn't meant to be challenging: Do you think that editor's judgments play any role in evaluating whether we should use an opinion source with attribution? Here's what I mean: if the NYT (for example) publishes an op-ed by some guy, does the fact that the the editors of the NYT decided to publish it make it more worthy as a source than it would have been if it had been published, say, in GQ? Or does the whole judgment of whether to use that opinion source have nothing to do with editors of the relevant publication, and instead rely only on the wikipedia editors' consensus about the status, qualifications, etc., of the author himself? That's what I guess I'm trying to understand about the policy at this point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I wish I could give you an authoritative and expert solution that always works, but it's usually done on a case-by-case basis, and when editors still can't agree on what to do, then it goes on up the chain to a place like RS/N. To avoid that time sink, it's often best to just compromise, and that often ends up working best, IOW no one is really satisfied, but they can live with it. That's often the sign of a good consensus. Everyone sacrifices a bit and progress is made in the general direction of a theoretical ideal state. If one has five demands and gets one or two of them, that's pretty good. Those who demand that one reach that ideal immediately don't last long here. Sometimes it's best and easiest to build a general structure so you have an article, and then fine tune it later toward perfection. Demanding perfection at every step of the way leads to headaches and disruption. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Media's hesitancy to label Trump a "liar"
Some writers have said he should not be called a "liar" because one cannot know his motives, all while admitting he was very untruthful and had no respect for the truth. Others have declared the situation to be so serious that it was time to dare call a sitting President a "liar". They seemed to focus more on the fact that the consequences of the constant repetition of falsehoods is the same, regardless of motives.
Outlets which use the word "lie"
1/1/2017. The New York Times editorial board has used “lie” to describe Trump’s rampant abuse of facts. And Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has taken the media to task for not using the word. Other outlets ― including MSNBC, New York Magazine and HuffPost ― will use the word when it’s merited.[1]
'Gerard Baker, WSJ. "I'd be careful about using the word 'lie'."
1/1/2017. On NBC's Meet The Press, January 1, 2017, The Wall Street Journal's Editor in Chief Gerard Baker said the journal wouldn't call Trump's false statements "lies": "I'd be careful about using the word 'lie'. 'Lie' implies much more than just saying something that's false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."[1]
1/2/2017. Greg Sargent also responded to Baker, stating that "Donald Trump 'lies.' A lot. And news organizations should say so." He also referred to "the nature of Trump's dishonesty — the volume, ostentatiousness, nonchalance, and imperviousness to correction at the hands of factual reality...."[2] Sargent described how Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of The New York Times, wrote that Trump's lies should be called lies "because he has shown a willingness to go beyond the 'normal sort of obfuscation that politicians traffic in.'"[2]
1/3/2017. Veteran reporter Dan Rather strongly disagreed with Baker's position, calling it "deeply disturbing".[3] He proposed a very different approach: "A lie, is a lie, is a lie." He wrote: "These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures." He directly criticized the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, and also Donald Trump, for lying, and wrote: "The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before."[4]
Mr. Trump certainly has a penchant for saying things whose truthfulness is, shall we say for now, challengeable. Much of the traditional media have spent the past year grappling with how to treat Mr. Trump’s utterances.
In a New Year’s Day broadcast on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” moderator Chuck Todd asked whether I, as the editor in chief of the Journal, would be comfortable characterizing in our journalism something Mr. Trump says as a “lie.”
Here’s what I said: “I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”
Note that I said I’d be “careful” in using the word “lie.” I didn’t ban the word from the Journal’s lexicon. Evidently, this carefulness is widely shared in the newsrooms of America. While some of the fresher news organizations have routinely called out Mr. Trump as a liar in their reporting, as far as I can tell, traditional newsrooms—print, digital, television—have used the term sparingly. Given the number of times Mr. Trump seems to have uttered falsehoods, that looks like prima facie evidence of a widespread reluctance to label him a liar.
Why the reluctance? For my part, it’s not because I don’t believe that Mr. Trump has said things that are untrue. Nor is it because I believe that when he says things that are untrue we should refrain from pointing it out. This is exactly what the Journal has done.
Mr. Trump has a record of saying things that are, as far as the available evidence tells us, untruthful...[5]
1/29/2017. "Don't Call Trump a Liar—He Doesn't Even Care About the Truth", Lauren Griffin, Newsweek, January 29, 2017
News outlets are still working through the process of figuring out what to call these mischaracterizations of reality. (“Alternative facts” seems to have been swiftly rejected.)
... [WSJ] Baker’s critics are missing the point. Baker is right. Trump isn’t lying. He’s bullshitting.
Bullshitter-in-chief?
Bullshitters, as philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote in his 1986 essay “On Bullshit,” don’t care whether what they are saying is factually correct or not. Instead, bullshit is characterized by a “lack of connection to a concern with truth [and] indifference to how things really are.” Frankfurt explains that a bullshitter “does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”[6]
8/24/2017. Why I’m Not Mad at the Wall Street Journal’s Gerard Baker.
The embattled WSJ editor doesn’t fear his newsroom’s wrath. As long as the paper’s Trump coverage keeps his boss happy, he’s invincible.[7]
Others
1/20/2017. Mary Ann Georgantopoulos, reporter at BuzzFeed, explained why BuzzFeed did not take accusing someone of lying lightly:
A lie isn't just a false statement. It's a false statement whose speaker knows it's false. In these instances, the president — or his administration — have clear reason to know otherwise. Reporters are understandably cautious about using the word — some never do, because it requires speculating on what someone is thinking. The cases we call "lies" are ones where we think it's fair to make that call: Trump is saying something that contradicts clear and widely published information that we have reason to think he's seen. This list also includes bullshit: speech that is — in its academic definition — "unconnected to a concern with the truth."[8]
1/21/2017. "Don’t call Trump a gaslighter: he’s just an inveterate liar", Donald Clarke, Irish Times, January 21, 2017[9]
1/22/2017. Aaron Blake, senior political reporter at The Washington Post explained: "Whether you like Trump or not, it's demonstrably true that he says things that are easily proved false, over and over again. The question the media has regularly confronted is not whether Trump's facts are correct but whether to say he's deliberately lying or not."[10]
1/26/2017. According to Alexandra Whiston-Dew, a lawyer and expert in media law at Mishcon de Reya, the British press does not call Trump a "liar" because of differences in defamation laws. The American press is protected by the First Amendment, whereas the British press has a different burden of proof.[11]
1/28/2017. David Greenberg, an author and a professor at Rutgers University, questioned whether one could always know Trump's intent and motives, and he expressed caution about calling Trump a liar, even though he admitted there was a "... barrage of false, duplicitous, dishonest and misleading statements emanating from Donald Trump and the White House in the last week...."[13]
2/4/2017. "Don’t call Donald Trump a liar – even if he is one", John Rentoul, The Independent, February 4, 2017[14]
2/17/2017. "Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at the media watchdog group Media Matters, has a strong message for the media trying to keep up with President Donald Trump: Get ready to call him out, and get ready to call him a liar if you have to.
“I know we’re only three weeks into this, and it’s going to take time because the establishment of DC media has never called a DC president a liar,” Boehlert said on Salon Talks, adding, “You cannot call a lie a claim.”
But for newspapers — like the New York Times, which recently used the word lie in its headline — is adapting slightly. And that’s something that Boehlert thought should happen more often.
“It’s time to get rid of these headlines,” he said. “If it is a demonstrable, proven lie, like his claim that journalists don’t cover terrorists' attacks. He’s lying to journalists about their own work, and they still won’t stand up and say, You’re lying about that.”[15]
6/5/2019. "Lies? The news media is starting to describe Trump's 'falsehoods' that way."[16]
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
On issue (1), here is the elaboration on each point from the primary source.
Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence
Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.
Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”
Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation
The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.
First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.
Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.
As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.
All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.
Witness tampering and intimidation
The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”
Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.
We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.
As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.
On issue (2), Mueller would not accuse Trump of a crime, because given that Mueller would not indict Trump per OLC opinion, he felt it would be unfair since Trump cannot clear his name in a court. Source - the Mueller Report itself, Volume II, Page 2. [34].
On issue (2), here is the long version in the Mueller Report
The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
-
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Here is the short version in Mueller's statement: [35]
And second the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.
-
And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.
So, I've shown it to you as you requested. Remember, you said Show me the evidence that supports the claim of obstruction and I will more than likely change my position. It's that simple. Cheers. Starship.paint
Here's an add-on to point (1), if a video of more former federal prosecutors [36] would be effective. Starship.paint
Unfortunately, the questioner did not follow through and change their position. Instead, their response to this excellent provision of evidence was the sad sound of a mind slamming shut. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
For your time, patience and calmness with people, Compared to me atleast you have the patience of a saint and so I wanted to say thank you for always being so patient and calm with everyone :),
Happy editing :),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I wish I was always that way, but I fail often. We all just need to learn to collaborate and get better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Removal of peer reviewed sources on Face on Mars article
You have just deleted the Pentad image, which has about 4 or 5 peer reviewed papers commenting on it. I will no undo further, I give up. Likely conspiranoics are right after all, some subjects are forbidden from rational discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diagramofsymmetry (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
What are these sources? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I will flood you with sources in some hours. If they are dismissed, I will apply for you to be expelled from Wikipedia. Science is not democratic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.82.191.117 (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I saw this added to the list article earlier today. I don't think it rises to the level of pseudoscience, all it is is stupidity really. -Roxy, the dog.wooF 15:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The studies were peer reviewed and the skeptic Greenberger conceded he could not dismiss the evidence. But it is stupidity according to you. Also that a clock delays when set in motion is tremendously stupid and nonsensical. Poor guy, some Einstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diagramofsymmetry (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Late pings
Late pings don't generate a notification. They only make it appear that one was generated, which can be misleading in certain situations. ―Mandruss☎ 19:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I created a new sig by deleting the old sig and using four new tildes. That essentially made it register as a new comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Further proof of mythness:[37][38], unless you received a notification from the second edit. ―Mandruss☎ 19:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I got two pings, which makes sense, as they were two totally different and widely-separated (in time) messages. Try again, but with only one message and no ping. Then wait a couple minutes and edit that couple, adding a ping and a new sig. Let's see what happens.
Oh, this won't work because I automatically get a ping for every single edit to my talk page. Do it from your talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
That test was from my talk page. ―Mandruss☎ 20:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh. I only got the standard pings from your comments above, and nothing from your talk page.
So what's a better way? Should I just make a new comment? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
In that situation, probably so. Another option is to self-revert and start over, using copy-and-paste to avoid having to type your comment again. ―Mandruss☎ 20:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I learn several new things here everyday. It seems strange that using a new sig doesn't work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It would seem strange (counter-intuitive, user-unfriendly) to me even if it worked with a new sig. But then I'm a software snob. As a software developer I would never allow my name to be associated with such a sloppy and troublesome design, and I strongly doubt that our developers couldn't do better if they gave it enough priority. That's Wikipedia. On the upside, we can feel superior because we're among the 5% who know this secret. ―Mandruss☎ 20:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
LMFAO! Shhh.... -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
You need to create a new line when you ping. It's stated at Template:Ping. Oh, and here's a portion of a video I liked. starship.paint (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I should also start using that template.
That's an interesting video. The amount of misinformation swallowed, and then spouted, by these Trump supporters is incredible. Watching Fox News has consequences. They are far down the rabbit hole. If they would just read our articles they'd be much better equipped. Amash is very patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Mistakes
I ABF and take full responsibility for it. I simply misinterpreted your revert in the edit summary. Don't trust everything you see...even salt looks like sugar, right? I struck my comment and apologized at the article TP. 🕊 AtsmeTalk📧 22:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Much appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
When to paraphrase or quote exactly.
When should we paraphrase or quote exactly? Sensitive and controversial statements are best quoted exactly in a quotebox. There should be no possibility for any confusion or misinterpretation to be attributed to editors' attempts at paraphrasing. The only question should be "Did you quote accurately?"
There are a million ways to paraphrase a long and controversial statement, and which paraphrase is the best? Which paraphrase is POV editing? Which paraphrase is whitewashing? Which paraphrase is deceptive? Which paraphrase is too long? Which paraphrase is to short?
Just quote the damn thing. Policy and fair use allow that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Some say that these are unsubstantiated allegations, but Trump actually substantiated them when he bragged about doing what they alleged he did:
"I just start kissing them ... I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab 'em by the pussy."
He bragged about doing it and they confirmed that he wasn't lying, except that not all "let him do it." Many women didn't like it and made allegations, but some Trump supporters still don't believe Trump and think the women are lying. Either they are both lying or both telling the truth, and there is nothing in Trump's character or history that indicates he wouldn't do exactly what he claimed to have done repeatedly.
Actually, these are just two sides of the same true story: He said "I did it" and they reply "Yes, he did." -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, another one of my essays. Writing essays is a good way to work through our thoughts and develop them. That essay describes something that's much easier in theory than practice. Human beings are not "neutral". None of us is, and that's normal and good. Anyone who claims to be neutral is deluded. We should be conscious of where we stand and why we believe what we believe. Not an easy task.
We all have our own opinions, and they get expressed on talk pages, but we should not allow our biases to add any biased "flavoring" to our editing of articles. When we prepare to edit an article, even in the preparatory research phase, we need to put those biases aside. We need to put on our "editor's hat" before we push that save button. Let me know when I fail in my actual editing. I'll appreciate it. It's good to have some ideals to strive for. Constant improvement is the name of the game. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that the title can be improved: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It's hard for any editor to be 100% neutral. But we must strive for the editors' editing to be neutral. starship.paint (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly what I mean, but your wording is better. I'll see if it's worth it to change. It's linked lots of places. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh and in an unrelated matter, in response to the Fram-Twitter incident, WP:WPWIR are working on new social media principles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Social media. They are looking for constructive criticism and constructive discussion - if you can provide that. starship.paint (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Epic
Lurking around I just fell on an old comment, that went in my personal quotes collection (not online): " ... Wikipedia is not to be used to un-brainwash the masses. ... We inform the masses about your attempts to brainwash them, using RS."[39] Maybe user-box worthy (if I have your permission to borrow and shorten it)... —PaleoNeonate – 21:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow! Did I really say that? I didn't even recognize it, and was about to ask who wrote it. It's good you provided the source. You're free to use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, should the box link to the diff, or mention your nickname? —PaleoNeonate – 03:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure. Try both. Let's see what you're creating. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Cool. One suggestion. Try dropping one word, and the last words, so that it looks like this: "Wikipedia is not to be used to un-brainwash the masses. We inform the masses about...attempts to brainwash them." Would that work? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Change applied (feel free to play with it too if wanted), —PaleoNeonate – 01:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not to be used to un-brainwash the masses. We inform the masses about...attempts to brainwash them.[40]
American presidents and North Korea
Hey, I saw a nice ~3 minute video about the above subjects. [41] I think it's worth a watch. starship.paint (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow! That's quite the video. Talk about hypocrisy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I hope you return soon. You have done a great job here and contributed much, but after the way you've been treated, a pause might be necessary. Do what you feel is best. Take a break, then come back and help. Good luck. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bull, you take care! starship.paint (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I understand what they meant there
Hey there, on Shinealittlelight's NPOV in WWII comment, I... think... I understand the thrust of their statement. They were arguing that supporters of antifascist activity see the resurgence of right authoritarian nationalist and nativist groups as being analogous to the rise of Hitler. They were stating further that as the rise of the Third Reich was seen by its opponents as an existential threat, it'd be impossible to remain neutral. They were then making the transitive claim that those people who support antifascist activity must see this resurgence of nationalism as an existential threat sufficient to compromise their faculty to remain neutral.
Now I will note that while I think I understand what they were trying to say, I vehemently disagree with all of that. As I mentioned at the related AN/I thread, I don't believe a single True Neutral editor exists. We all have POVs, and we arrive at truth through applying the lens of our disparate POVs to an attempt to hammer out a neutral understanding of the world. Anyway, I'm sure they can verify or disagree with this interpretation when they come off block; but I don't think they were claiming to have any current CoI with regard to the Third Reich. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I haven't edited alongside them on this subject, so you know best. You may find my latest comment on their talk page to be of interest. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes I do. And I appreciate the way that everybody has handled this. I really hope they take this time to reflect on avoiding making such severe personal attacks and come back ready to collaborate again. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick drive-by
To say Thank You for your participation. Awilley & JFG helped get my alert up and running on my UTP. It works!! If you get a chance, check it out by trying to post a DS alert. AtsmeTalk📧 00:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations, Atsme! What you've done is truly impressive, as it's generally hard to make substantive changes to such things. I have succeeded in tweaking major policies, but I don't recall ever having any success in actually changing one. Your change will make it easier for some beleaguered editors. You rock! (Sorry for the delay. We've been vacationing in the Trinity Alps. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thx, BR. Couldn't have done it without JFG, Awilley and Galobtter. I think it will save a bit of grief and some extra work for editors & admins alike, once they get used to it. (My trigger template lists all of the topics 😊) Oh, Wow!! Trinity Alps - now THAT'S a vacation. AtsmeTalk📧 19:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, there is another issue with that editor. They have been using multiple IPs to edit, rather than always logging in. That's wrong. Check the contributors to that sandbox. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I remember telling him in the edit history of the article to log in, or something like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Reindeer
I just read about your reindeer hunting on your user page. I was just wondering - is hunting reindeer similar to hunting whitetail deer? And does the meat they have a similar flavor to venison (and yes, I know that deer that eat grass and pine taste a lot different from the grain-fed deer in the Midwest) Just curious. -BattleshipGray (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Good questions. I really can't say, as I've never shot any other big game than reindeer. I suspect that the flavor is affected by their diet, as you have alluded to. I recall that the rock ptarmigan we shot in the fall tasted different than the ones in the winter, and that was likely because of a different diet. In the fall they ate lots of blueberries, and in the winter dried seeds and leaves. The meat literally tasted as if it had been (slightly) marinated in blueberry. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Russiagate conspiracy theory. Since you had some involvement with the Russiagate conspiracy theory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — JFGtalk 05:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Related to the June User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 24#123IP edit at archived DRN: I recently checked the DRN Archive and it appears the volunteer left an error; The "Timeline" is in the TOC and the Archive, but all the items past the "Timeline" are missing even though listed in the TOC. The "blanking" is still in the page's history. Do you know how to proceed in correcting Archive to its proper state? Or with whom to talk? X1\ (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I tried to fix it. It looks like a code had been left out a couple places. There is still one long thread that isn't hidden. I'm not sure how to fix that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there an "Archive Admin" or some protector of the Archives? Even though the volunteer edited the Archive (maybe inappropriately?), I don't want to mess with it. X1\ (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I fixed the immediate problem you mentioned. Is there more that really needs to be done? -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with many of their points and suspect that we (you and I) share much common ground. I share some of their concerns. What are your thoughts on it?
BTW, this is my talk page, not an article talk page, so you don't need to fear getting into trouble for advocacy of fringe opinions. Although that applies everywhere at Wikipedia, we generally allow more latitude on personal talk pages, so feel free to share your thoughts. If we understand each other better, there is less likelihood of misunderstanding each other when we edit on the same pages. I've been here since 2003 and know the ropes pretty well, so I can help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
~ LOL ~ your number 3 for quest four ~ ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems to be fixed now. I left a comment on the talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I like yours and MelanieN's edit better ~ I was going to leave one but I got there to late plus mine would not have been as educational. ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Damn ~ sorry ~ I thought the edit was calling ~ trump ~ OMG ~ lol ~ well chalk that one up for being stupid ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Nah, an easy mistake to make. I saw that it was going back and forth, so I studied the situation and refs before finally reverting. All's well now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
sources-talk v. reflist-talk
When I create a Talk section, please don't change my intended Template:reflist-talks to Template:sources-talks, as I find them the opposite of "better". Per my ESs, I want to see the references used. X1\ (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't notice who had done it, only that I have been advised by admins to use that code when I write comments. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Did the admins give a rationale? X1\ (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Just less obtrusive. I don't see it as a mandate or rule, just their personal preference. Do whatever you want. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Option C
Re this, Option C was already introduced and defined to mean "nothing". ―Mandruss☎ 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
"Nothing" is too simple, uninformative, and a bit misleading because he is actually anti-exercise, and my version covers the subject quite thoroughly without actually saying "anti-exercise". -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, but I oppose two different Options C. ―Mandruss☎ 16:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense. Feel free to change my "option" to a better letter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't realized it had been expanded from a redirect. I have semi-protected it for a month, but that will almost certainly need to be renewed, and probably indeffed; the temptation to turn it into an attack page is way too strong. Keep an eye on it for me, will you? Let me know if something needs to be revdel'ed, or if it needs re-protection in the future. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Update: Western Journal is now on the Table. X1\ (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Edits to Carter Page article
I saw your recent edit to the Carter Page article, in which you mentioned Joe diGenova. I wanted to make sure you saw the discussion about that topic on the talk page for the Carter Page article so you can weigh in if you're so inclined.
"This new PRRI poll data finds significant differences between "Fox News Republicans" and other Republicans who say Fox is NOT their primary news source. For example: "A majority (55%) of Republicans for whom Fox News is their primary news source say there is nothing Trump could do to lose their approval, compared to only 29% of Republicans who do not cite Fox News as their primary news source." Here's the full report in PDF form... The NYT has a recap here..."
BullRangifer, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt... YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! X1\ (talk)
21:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I love editing here. It isn't always easy, but it's rewarding. I learn so much. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
A request
Please do not misrepresent things I've said as you did here. You know full well it was not anywhere close to what I said. AtsmeTalk📧 18:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe I've misrepresented anything. If I have, I truly apologize. You are welcome to explain in the thread at RS/N (rather than evading), which is the relevant place to discuss your dependence on unreliable sources. There is no better place. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Donald Trump
I don't know what it is that I am supposed to do. That is absolutely the purpose of that talk page, or of some talk page. Instead of reverting, how about explaining where I am supposed to post. And if you don't know, leave my comment there for someone who does.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I would love to help you, but I need to know where this happened. Please provide a diff of the edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I have self-reverted. I looked at the article history and saw the IP edit at the top of the list (I should have refreshed the page first) and then made my revert without realizing there were any intervening edits. I'm so sorry. Keep up the good work and feel free to approach me with any issues. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I already took care of the IP edit and gently warned the person.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Good for you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a note
Re [42] I just wanted to say that WP:PRESERVE by itself is a poor argument for inclusion, almost as bad as WP:NOTCENSORED. (See WP:CGTW #12) WP:PRESERVE only applies when the content is appropriate for the encyclopedia article in the first place. You'll note a list of exceptions at WP:DON'T PRESERVE (part of the same policy page). ~Awilley (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I largely agree ("by itself", which it isn't). The arguments for removal were not legitimate in the least. I am also familiar with those Don't Preserve factors, which are the usual ones for inferior quality, irrelevant material, minority views with little due weight, or BLP violations. What I've included is very relevant as it comes from the highest authority in the party and represents the top officer in the prosecuting party, so to speak. While notability is not a requirement for content, it certainly plays a part in determining weight, and it's hard to find higher weight for this content. It's not mere partisan politics, but is a concise description of the three elements in the case, based on a grouping of the evidence gathered to this point. It is thus part of the evidence to be used in the appeachment process. The content is, of course, attributed, as should be done with potentially controversial material. In that regard, I have dotted my Is and crossed my Ts. I have just replied to Steve Quinn and agree to his compromise. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
How to use citation expander or fix dead link bot actions to improve reference correctly
I used a bot, citation expander, on the article Nuclear Disarmament, I have just recently learned how to use it, other editors told me to use it, you commented that it bloated the article. How should I avoid that? thank you for taking the time to comment, I really appreciated it Toandanel49 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
It is the fix dead links bot that I was using improperly? Toandanel49 (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. It has a setting which will replace ONLY deadlinks. It is the addition of archive links which isn't necessary. If you'll look at the history, you'll see that your edits add HUGE amounts of non-essential content to articles. That is then figured into the total size of the article, and there are editors who then see it as their duty to trim the article, often deleting valuable content. Archive links are only necessary for deadlinks. BTW, just in case you don't know this, we don't remove deadlinks. (I am not implying that you have done so.) Many people think they should be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
BR, your advice dies not match the guideline at WP:DEADREF regarding archives. It says "link to their archive of the URL's content, if available" , which applies whether or not the link is dead. This obviously has the benefit that if the link becomes dead in the future then we have a ready made backup, and although editors omit this archive link more often than not, it is the correct thing to do. — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, AFAIK, there is no official policy on this, but the practice adds HUGE amounts of content and makes the article harder to edit. It's really a bad idea. The bot's setting should be set to only fix deadlinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, your link and quote only refers to real deadlinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
So I have been following the discussions at RSN and have to ask. Are you now or have you ever been affiliated with the website Quackwatch? PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
No. That accusation was soundly debunked by a number of editors at the ArbCom. I have never had anything to do with the website. I was an assistant moderator on a Kentucky health fraud discussion group, but that was not associated with the website. When Barrett became the Moderator, I continued to serve as an assistant, along with several other group members. We had little interaction with Barrett and only did anything when he was traveling and couldn't monitor the group. We basically stopped disruptors. When he was monitoring the list, we were "off duty", so to speak. The few times I have ever emailed Barrett I have received no or unpleasant responses. He's not a very diplomatic guy, at least not in my experience. A shared interest in anti-quackery activities is not a COI. This was all many years ago, and I haven't had anything to do with the list or Barrett for at least 12 years. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah I was rather concerned when reading the case you posted at RSN. Specifically Steth's section here. PackMecEng (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, I can understand, but consider the source. Steth was a huge pusher of quackery here at Wikipedia and his/her POV was soundly rejected by the community. Several of the claims he made there are flat out falsehoods. BTW, both my attackers at the ArbCom case received the most severe "punishment" one can get here. They were community banned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The end result for me was that I was cautioned to avoid the appearance of a COI. Explanations of the facts about QW and Barrett is perfectly proper conduct. For several years I was very active editing those artiles, so I know a lot about those subjects. I also used to use the website a lot and I never got close to the bottom of that database. It used to be possible to search it using Google's search bar, but that function no longer works for me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks for filling in the blanks for me. I appreciate it. PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing. If you feel I'm getting too passionate, let me know. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Will do, but not really my place to say. PackMecEng (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello BullRangifer and thanks for your explanation. I understand if the smaller discussion group was merged into the one moderated by Barrett, and that it was many years ago, but "I have never had anything to do with the website" feels like a stretch because at the time you mentioned you were an assistant listmaster, the mailing list was hosted as healthfraud-subscribe@lists.quackwatch.com?--Pudeo (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Pudeo, there was no other discussion group at QW. Barrett became the moderator of the discussion group for the Kentucky skeptics and the group just continued. He later started hosting it at QW and the group grew in size to over 500 people when I left it about 12 years ago. Now it's over 600.
The website itself, with all its content, only shared the server, and I never had anything to do with it or the maintenance of that software/internet/programming aspect of the group. Those who assisted him only stopped vandals and disrupters when Barrett was not moderating. He traveled a lot, holding speeches and seminars, advising governmental and consumer protection agencies, and appearing in court as an expert witness or seeking to prosecute those who libeled him. As a public person, he often was unable to stop them, but he did get out of court settlements from some, most notably Joseph Mercola. Public persons are very vulnerable to libel.
Barrett did create a page at QW encouraging people to join the discussion group. It's still there.
Here's an interesting article I just found: https://www.cardrates.com/news/quackwatch-protects-against-questionable-healthcare-claims-and-their-financial-implications/ Quackwatch: A 23-Year Record of Vigilance Against Questionable Healthcare Claims and Their Financial Implications. It contains some interesting bits of information about Barrett and QW which are news to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]]
:* Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
is actually not recommended under our accessibility guideline for lists (MOS:LISTGAP), since MediaWiki ends up rendering the list in a way that makes it difficult for users of screen readers to understand. Keeping the initial list type the same would be better:
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]]
** Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
and nesting indents after bullets is acceptable, too:
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]]
*: Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
Thanks for understanding! — Newslingertalk 04:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger, okay. The question is the intent of the editor. If they wish to leave a bullet, especially an indented one, they must use an asterisk in the last position to the right. If they use an asterisk and then colons, all they get are indents, in which case they might as well just use colons. Mixing them in that case is a dumb idea. I assumed that they wanted to use bullets. In that case, according to what you write above, they should not use colons, but only use multiple asterisks. Is that correct? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it depends on the intent of the editor. For bulleted discussions, I'm most familiar with using bullets for the top level, and then indents for levels after that, like this:
MOS:LISTGAP considers this "acceptable". Some editors (and I think this includes you) prefer using bullets for every comment, which is actually the "best practice" for lists. You're right in that multiple asterisks are the preferred way to do this:
For more complex lists, the key is to refrain from switching list types for the same "column" in adjacent "rows". Here's an example of the preferred way to represent several nested lists:
Complex list
* Phase I
*# Examine three fruits:
*## Apple
*##: An apple is a sweet, edible fruit produced by an apple tree (''Malus domestica'').
*## Banana
*##: A banana is an edible fruit – botanically a berry – produced by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants in the genus ''Musa''.
*## Orange
*##: The orange is the fruit of the citrus species ''Citrus'' × ''sinensis'' in the family Rutaceae, native to China.
*# Select favorite fruit.
*#* Note: Record type of fruit.
The result is:
Phase I
Examine three fruits:
Apple
An apple is a sweet, edible fruit produced by an apple tree (Malus domestica).
Banana
A banana is an edible fruit – botanically a berry – produced by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants in the genus Musa.
Orange
The orange is the fruit of the citrus species Citrus × sinensis in the family Rutaceae, native to China.
Select favorite fruit.
Note: Record type of fruit.
Hope this helps! — Newslingertalk 08:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
List of past noticeboard discussions on Quackwatch's reliability
The due weight of sub-articles in the lead of a mother article
Pete makes a good point about due weight as a determining factor for inclusion in the lead of an article:
"but I suggest that if material in the body warrants its own specialised article, as this topic does here, then the topic is worthy of inclusion in the lede; it's not something that is seen as minor."
When one reads a large mother article of significance, such as Donald Trump, it will have many sections, a number of which are short summaries of SPINOFF sub-articles. One could get the mistaken impression (gained from visually comparing the size of sections) that many of those short summaries are of less due weight than the longer sections which do not link to a sub-article. That is often the exact opposite of reality. Those "longer sections which do not link to a sub-article" have so little due weight that they don't deserve a sub-article, and thus only short mention in the lead.
To properly gauge due weight, one should look at the sub-article, and then realize that it often has much more due weight than a section not leading to a sub-article. It was so weighty that we could not give it full coverage in the mother article. So keep that in mind when determining what and how much should be mentioned in the lead. Give those sub-articles their due weight in the lead of the mother article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I get a lot of email every day, and a lot of alerts, but this might be good, so I'll give it a try. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Question on climate change
Hey BullRangifer, I hope you are feeling well these days. I've got a question that you might be able to answer. I've noticed a number of times people say various sources "downplay the scientific consensus on climate change." I'm quoting your edit to the Tucker Carlson page. From a Wikipedia POV what have we decided is the actual consensus? In a quick search I found NASA's view [[43]] which looks like a good case. So based on that I would assume the "consensus" is temps are rising and it is highly likely humans are the cause (or at least an accelerant). What is less clear is if discussions related to the impact of such changes and if those impacts are going to be significant would be a consensus discussion. I don't have a specific example in mind and this isn't an area I'm generally interested in editing but I was thinking about it in relation to the PragerU topic a while back. Would a scientist who agrees that temperatures are rising but doesn't agree about the impact to crop production or doesn't agree we are going to see a meaningful sea level rise be considered "against consensus"? Even if they were outspoken in these areas would we say they are against climate change consensus or just that they disagree on the impacts?
I'm asking out of curiosity but my gut feel (and this isn't supported by anything I could so I could be 100% wrong) is that at least some of the people who "don't agree" actually do agree in general but not in the detail but the difference in those details leads them to be labeled as out of step. Anyway, am I off base here? By way of background on my thinking, I tend to feel that few things are actually black and white. If you look at the work I did on the Ford Pinto fuel system fires as an example. The simple tail is Ford and the people who worked their were callous and happy to trade lives for profits. The reality was far more complex but the complex story only gets told years after the simple one took root. I wounder if in the future we will see something similar with climate change. Anyway, hope you are well and would be interested in your thoughts. (Either way I don't want to edit in this area). Springee (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this: "Would a scientist who agrees that temperatures are rising but doesn't agree about the impact to crop production or doesn't agree we are going to see a meaningful sea level rise be considered "against consensus"?" While that is obviously a disagreement "on the impacts," yes, it would be a significant enough disagreement to state that they disagree with the consensus. Any long-term temperature changes, especially the existing rising temperatures, will obviously have significant effects on both crop production and sea level rise. Even uneducated people can understand that reasoning.
We're also seeing the changing weather patterns, with areas that previously experienced mild winters experiencing arctic conditions, and other areas that previously experienced harsher winters experiencing milder winters, but the overall tendency is still toward higher temperatures worldwide. Some areas that are normally hot are getting much hotter and drier. That's the problem in California, where I live, and the tendency is toward more and more wildfires. (Because Trump hates California, he at first refused to approve, and then he delayed, any aid. His climate change denial and views on forest management are seen as anti-science and absurd.) The Camp Fire (2018) destroyed our home and town. 52,000 fled that inferno. I was able to save our two small dogs and most important papers. Everything else was lost. Because my wife drove her car and I drove mine, we also saved them. Our cat has never been found. It took us about five hours to drive what normally took 20 minutes. Traffic gridlock with fires everywhere is a horrible experience.
In the United States, the effects of climate change appear like this. Just put your open hand on a map of the U.S. and twist it clockwise 10-15 minutes. Imagine the movement of temperature and typical weather patterns from one area to another. The results are what we're seeing, as I describe above. Personally, it would be best to move to an area which remains relatively stable, as there are such central focal points around which this change is occurring. They stay fairly stable.
Is there an article or list that says what is actually "consensus"? The NASA page seemed to only say consensus covered "Earth is warming and humans had an impact" They aren't saying much else so when I read about "consensus" I always wonder where the consensus stops.
BTW, I had no idea that you were impacted by the Camp Fire. I'm very sorry to hear that. In the few years I lived in California (Bay Area) I missed both fires and earthquakes but I did get flooded by El Nino but that was more like an inconvenience vs loosing a home and pet. I hope you have made great progress towards recovering. Springee (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The Scientific consensus on climate change article should have what you're looking for. The main consensus is what you say. The degree and speed of impact is subject to interpretation, but that it's happening is not doubted by climate scientists, and the latest I've read is that it's occurring faster than expected, IOW that previous estimates are now considered too conservative. What was seen as alarmist is now seen as more realistic, which is a scary thought.
This all renders prognostications about the future of human evolution and societal developments in the next few hundreds or thousands of years to be a waste of time. We'll be off the scene by then, or very few will have survived and attempting to "live" under conditions that are not at all conducive to human life. We know that some other planets are not conducive to human life because of various factors like atmosphere, lack of water, and temperature extremes. Earth will quickly join the list of uninhabitable planets, but with a huge difference; humans will have lived here for a relatively short span of earth's history, and will have killed themselves off because of poor stewardship of the resources necessary for their own survival. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Mueller and dossier
According to CNN, the CIA and FBI "took Steele's research seriously enough that they kept it out of" a January 6, 2017, report on Russian meddling issued by the United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence "in order to not divulge which parts of the dossier they had corroborated and how."[1]
^Cite error: The named reference Perez_Prokupecz_Brown_10/25/2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
.jpg)
