This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 21
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.
For some odd reason we ignore the alleged cover-up which is in progress. There are plenty of RS which refer to it, even if they may not use that exact term. Denials, lies, "forgetting", then forced admissions, changing stories, blocking of investigations, moving the goalposts, etc, are what's happening. These factors should be mentioned.
Here is a part of the cover-up. These are Trump associates who have hidden, lied about, "forgotten", and then been forced to admit their Russian contacts and repeated meetings. Some have even been acting as foreign agents (F), and later had to register. Four (X) have stepped back in one way or another because of these suspicious connections. Several have seen the campaign and administration distance itself from them, with denials of their importance or roles, even denying knowing them. Later the truth has come out.
On December 16, it was reported that Comey and Clapper were in agreement with the CIA assessment "that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump...." Russia denied this assessment, and so did Donald Trump: "I think it's ridiculous. I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it. . . . No, I don't believe it at all." CIA director John Brennan stated: "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election."[7]This was removed
Mentions the three basic reasons for the interference.
Uses "U.S." instead of "United States".
I would also support having the words "successfully interfered" in the middle, because that's obviously what happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
On Version B6, I'm wondering if that might make the reader think, so how did Trump win? Maybe mention, "Trump won the electoral college vote after losing the national vote, while nether candidate won a majority of the national vote. What do you think? Also, we're starting to get support for B4, maybe it's best to leave off anymore options? SW3 5DL (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, the only reason I try is to see if we can meet Any... part way. It seems important to them to see the word "majority" in the lead. Here's another attempt, incorporating your thoughts:
Well, you're very good at it. Not sure it will get any votes, though. You should also look at some of the other edits and try your hand at rewriting them (not the ones on the survey, but the ones in the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It may depend on how much people want in the lead. Otherwise, B4 is good because it's short and sweet. It gets the key points across, but without any explanation at all. That's where your concern has merit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think B4 is the best. It says it all in just a few words, no ambiguity, just straight out plain English. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Clapper on evidence of collusion
Hey Bullrangifer, I got your message on the "latest" Clapper interview. Bottom line he testified under oath in front of congress that NO evidence of collusion existed between Trump and Russia during his tenure. My gripe with your revert was you did it because you don't like what he said. He said it and it was reliably sourced that he said it. If you WAITED until he changed his story somewhat and then deleted my piece you would have made a stronger case. I like your user page and agree 100% on your PRESERVE piece. Let all facts be written and the reader can make up their own mind. I almost never revert a good faith edit. I try to collaborate and make constructive additions/ changes. I wish you would give me the same courtesy and hopefully we can work together in the future to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for reading.Aceruss (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No, the reason it was removed was because we already covered that subject, and much better, without your tendentious addition of the word "whatsoever". See what was already on the page in this section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the other section where it mentions Clappers no collusion statements. The lede still needs balance. There is plenty of collusion innuendo there, and nothing showing the lack of evidence of collusion.Aceruss (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Lack of declared evidence is not the same as no evidence at all. You can't make any conclusion either way from his statements, and you are pushing the idea that there is no evidence. You can't make or imply that conclusion. Clapper hedged his comment very carefully. At the time (January), he did not know there was any ongoing investigation on the subject of collusion. The FBI has a different job than the CIA. Comey hadn't told Clapper yet, and no one wanted to let anyone know for fear of Trump being alerted that he was being investigated. Now we know that there has been an investigation for some time on Trump and his associates, and that investigation is getting into higher gear. The future will be interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Cover-up investigation
The Trump/Russia investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation:
"...authorized to probe whether White House officials have engaged in a cover-up..."
"Even as members of Congress were mulling the possible expansion of the case into a cover-up probe, and its reclassification from counterintelligence to criminal, the scandal appeared to grow."
"Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, described the possibility of a cover-up as the third branch of an investigation that began as a look at Russian meddling in the election and broadened into whether members of the Trump campaign had cooperated in that effort."[1]
Sometimes an editor will object to content they deem trivial. Does WP:TRIVIA apply, or does it only apply to "trivia sections"?
Whether to include such content is an editorial call based on how RS treat the matter. Our opinions are not a factor in how we make that call. If a matter which we might personally think is trivial is the subject of deeper discussion in a major RS, or is covered by multiple RS, then the sources are not treating it as trivia, so our personal opinions don't matter. We should mention it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
How not to create "balance" in an article
Adding unreliable sources to create "balance" is a bad idea for many reasons. Doing so would not "balance" the article. NPOV does not mean a neutered presentation of all views, with an even balance of views from each political POV. NPOV refers to editorial conduct and how editors present biased information from RS. They must preserve the source's existing bias. If an article shows a bias in one direction, it should be that way because that is the dominant bias in RS. That bias must not be changed. Not all opinions are equal, and facts do tend to favor one POV. The article should give more weight to that POV.
The problem exposed by such attempts to add "balance" is that reading unreliable sources twists one's thinking, and then we end up with the twisted view affecting editing, giving unreliable sources more weight than reliable ones in a manner which actually promotes falsehood. It would be better for such editors to stop reading unreliable sources. Editors who read unreliable sources without extremely good BS filters cause problems here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The price is right
Though it has been removed now the quote you put the CN tag was lifted from the source above the text.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Got any ideas for more new articles on the topic I can write and create? Sagecandor (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I just replied there a moment ago. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay cool. Drop me a line sometime if you think of any others or more ideas on those. Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for helping me deal with stalking and harassment. Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure. Editing here should be safe, and harassment anywhere isn't right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Wanted to let you know that I'd retired
Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. Always was a great pleasure working with you, creating prompts for your attention and seeing them acted on, etc. You are the best of this place, mate. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details regarding my departure, if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you, for your clarity, at [1]. Sagecandor (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Trump campaign–Russian meeting
2nd statement says 20 to 30 minutes for the meeting. Kushner was there about 7 min. Look at the size of the article - and still to this day, it's a nothing burger. With the tarmac incident, there was a flurry of emails going back and forth - DOJ advising MSM what to say based on Talking Points that were prepared. The Phoenix ABC affiliate are the ones that caught it all - told hdqtrs - then ABC's Levin called DOJ tipped off Director Newman, and the panic began. Comey even sold Lynch out at his hearing because of that meeting. It's a big deal...some heads will roll as a result, but the most damage will be to WaPo and NYTimes when they don't need that kind of damage. Wait for it. It's a helluva lot more interesting than Donald Trump's handshake for Pete's sake. I know full well why that article was AfD'd only 2 days after creation - we don't even do that to IPs at NPP. Atsme📞📧 04:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Note that I haven't said anything about the merits of the AfD. BTW, it's not uncommon for new articles to be AfDed the same day they are created. I have seen it many times.
As far as the relative importance of the two meetings, the tarmac meeting may turn out to be something, although no evidence of wrongdoing has been proven, only the appearance. It was an unwise occurrence, and there is evidence that they tried to do damage control because it could look bad. Evidence of damage control doesn't prove anything really bad happened, but it fuels conspiracy theories.
The Trump Tower meeting has great significance as it is the event which cracked open the investigation in a whole new way. It provided the first public evidence that Trump Sr. was pulling the strings and controlling the narrative. That's about public perception. The FBI and CIA have known for some time. They are starting with the low hanging fruit, keeping those higher up in the dark. This way they can get more evidence, flip witnesses, etc. They are giving Trump Sr and others plenty of rope to hang themselves. They act very guilty.
By the time Mueller's team gets to the center of the spider web, with Trump Sr. in the middle, he will have been incriminating himself with more lies, coverups, destruction of evidence, etc, and in the end the coverup may be worse than the crime, and enough to convict for obstruction of justice. That's the lesson we have from history. Keep in mind that Al Capone was not convicted of murder, extortion, etc, but of tax evasion. People of power work through others, keeping their hands "clean". They end up going down for other crimes.
His decision on Air Force One to override the existing "consensus" decision was fatal. Trump Jr, Kushner, and their advisors and lawyers, had already made a "consensus" decision to issue statements which were transparent and honest, because they knew that the facts would come out. When presented with this decision, Trump Sr. literally "trumped" it, went to the cabin in the plane and dictated a very different statement, one which was deceptive and misleading. That version was published and is now evidence against him. It proves he tried to coverup a damaging meeting, a meeting which wasn't about adoptions, as he said, but about lifting the sanctions, IOW about the Magnitsky Act.
(That has been Trump's avowed goal for some time, and the deal described on p. 30 of the dossier and worked out by Carter Page: Trump would get 19% of Rosneft ($11 BILLION) if he (1) became president, and then (2) lifted the sanctions. That way Putin, Trump, and Rex Tillerson (Exxon Mobil) could make a lot of money from blocked oil. The deal has partially been fulfilled: When Trump won the election, Rosneft was partially liquidated and 19.5% (that 0.5% was for fees and probably to pay Page) was transferred, through a series of shell company transactions, to a Cayman Islands account. The deal was signed on December 7, 2016. BTW, if Trump doesn't succeed in lifting the sanctions, he doesn't get that money. Putin will probably just keep it and release the "golden showers" tapes at a convenient time.)
That decision to issue a deceptive statement provided evidence to the public that Trump Sr. was not as innocent as he has portrayed himself to be. It also provided a pretext for Mueller to convene another grand jury, using that meeting as the can opener to start their investigations. The meeting had all the types of people in attendance for lots of investigation. There's even a joke about the meeting: "A lawyer, a spy, a money launderer & a mob boss walk into a bar. The bartender says 'you guys must be here for the adoptions'."
The investigation can, if necessary, examine every single aspect of the lives of all those unsavory characters, and for some odd reason, Trump Sr. is at the center connecting them all. Placing all those people in the same room at the same time was like dropping a golden apple into Mueller's hand. They did not gather in Trump Tower to discuss adoptions for 20-30 minutes. Don't believe that for a minute. They are all big players with very big fish to fry. I suspect that some day we'll learn that Donald Sr. was at the meeting. He left another meeting and went to Trump Tower and was in the building at the time. If he was not in the meeting, why would Lewandowski lie about Trump's location at the time?
Don't deprecate the importance of the Trump Tower meeting. Small things can end up having great significance. Just sayin' -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I've noticed your early edits on chiro-related pages, and from your user page can tell you're still interested in editing chiropractic articles. I recently started up a WikiProject on the topic and was wondering if you'd be interested in adding your name to the list and offering some ideas for the improvement of all chiro articles on the site. From the looks of it we have no GA or FA articles, and after all related pages are added to the project the first goal will be to reduce the number of stubs and start tackling some of the more rampant bias seen on a few specific articles. If you're interested, you can find the project here: WP:CHIRO. It's still in draft form, until more people sign on! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DrStrauss was:
Lots of these claims need multiple references per WP:BLP.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Danney Williams and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
As a relatively inexperienced newbie here, I'll forgive your attempt to defend BLP, but you should save your efforts for truly serious violations. I was just referring to content in the dossier, the actual topic of the article, and that CANNOT be a BLP violation. See pp 30-31.
My own repetition of what "some would call it" is nowhere near a BLP violation, and refers to commonly held opinions in many sources. We just haven't gotten that far with the content yet. Time will tell how it will be described after Mueller's investigation is finished. Maybe Trump himself will survive with a damaged reputation as Putin's "useful idiot", or maybe he'll end up in a penitentiary as a full-blown conspiracist with an enemy power to sabotage the democratic process and steal the election. I suspect he'll never spend time in prison, regardless of the outcome.
BTW, you may not know this, but the money from that 19% of Rosneft was last traced, after the sale in December 2016, to a Cayman Islands account. As far as we know, Trump has not received the money because he has been blocked from lifting the sanctions, although he certainly wants to do it and keeps trying.
Here are some links which describe the sale and transfer of funds through shell companies, a Russian bank (in an illegal - in Russia - transaction that could only happen by Putin's direct command and intervention), various businesses, and Qatar, some of which have significant connections to Trump's business interests: 12345 It is only because of the detective work by numerous skilled investigative journalists that we could find out what Russia and Trump were trying to keep hidden. $11 billion is a whole lot of money! -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The dossier is not a reliable source. You may cite allegations that are mentioned in reliable sources, but you may not use the dossier as a source for any material related to a living person. I think it's uncontroversial to mention relatively widely reported allegation such the Rosneft deal on a talk page without citing sources, but if you go further than that and – as you did – claim that some specific allegation has been confirmed, you need to present at least one damn good source to refute all reliable sources that say allegations are unverified.
I'm going to redact your not-vote once again as my redaction has been reverted and the BLP issue remains unsolved. If you continue peddling conspiracy theories like you did above, you are digging yourself a hole. Politrukki (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why did you select your user name as Politruks (plural)? Is it a political statement or a statement of bias? BTW, which sources tell that the allegations were wrong? B. provided his sources. Where are your sources telling otherwise? My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
You are asking all the wrong questions. The allegations are unverified, unproved.
The dossier says that the meeting with Igor Sechin, president of state-run Rosneft, was meant to broker a deal to lift US sanctions on the multi-billion dollar company in return for the Kremlin helping Trump win. No public evidence has emerged to corroborate this specific claim in the dossier. – CNN
Among the unverified allegations in the Steele dossier is a claim that Sechin offered Page a 19 percent stake in Rosneft if he worked to roll back economic sanctions that the Obama administration had leveled against Moscow. – Vanity Fair
There is no evidence that Page played any role in the Rosneft deal. – Business Insider
Did this help you? Politrukki (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the allegations are unproven (per these sources), but they are well sourced and arguably notable. Therefore they belong to BLP pages of public figures (see here) if there is WP:Consensus to include. There are no BLP violations. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
You're still missing the point: if allegations are noteworthy and verifiable, they may be included. The difference is that BullRangifer said the allegations are true. Local consensus can't override BLP (community consensus). Politrukki (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
BullRangifer, thank you for your revised not-vote. I have no further BLP objections. Politrukki (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Politrukki, you're being very selective. The next words come pretty close to confirming that the 19% allegation could very well be true, without directly admitting it, although the last words grudgingly come pretty close:
"While Page said he did “not directly” express his support for lifting the sanctions, which he said were “outside the scope” of Baranov’s authority, when asked by Schiff whether he had discussed “a potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft” with the oil executive, Page said he “may have briefly mentioned it.”"
As the sources I have provided above show, the 19% figure mentioned in the dossier became an actual transaction, ending up in that Cayman Islands account. (I'm sure that was just a coincidence.... )
I understand you don't want to see anything that might indicate that Trump and Page are trying to hide something, and are not being completely honest. Well, the many parts you leave out sure sound suspiciously like a hostile witness trying not to admit wrongdoing, but while also trying to not say anything which could later be interpreted as perjury, IOW not complete denials that something "might" have happened. He leaves the door open because he suspects (because he knows what happened and that the evidence likely exists somewhere) that Mueller, Steele, the CIA, FBI, MI6, French, Dutch, German, and other intelligence agencies actually have conclusive proof, maybe even recordings, which confirm without a doubt that he said what the dossier says he said.
He knows that Mueller is fishing for perjury, and seeking to make it easy for Page and others to fall into that trap. That's also why Sessions has been so dramatically evasive and forgetful that, if true, he isn't qualified, or literally able, to hold any type of job that requires a barely functional memory, much less the responsible job of Attorney General of the United States. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I replied to your comment on article talk page, but probably will not edit these pages. This is too depressing for me to edit. As one Russian commentator said after 2016 elections, "in a few years from now Americans will not recognize their country". My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Sadly true. Too much damage has been done. He has even turned over security at our embassy in Moscow to a KGB-linked Russian firm! That's how far he's compromised us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Another very sad thing about the "interference": it is completely irrational. Russians have nothing to gain from the confrontation with the West, but a lot to loose. As some pundits commented (I mostly read sources in Russian), the entire Russian foreign policy is driven by the personal feelings of one man. War in Georgia had happen because one leader called another "Lilliputian". The Crimea and Donbass had happened because the leader was offended by the ouster of "his" man in Kiev during the Olympic Games. Intervention in Syria had happen because everyone ignored the leader on a meeting of most important countries. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. BTW, Russian 1st TV channel now shows a series of pseudohistory movies which paint October Revolution as a conspiracy (a "color revolution") which was driven by the British ambassador to Russia and other Western agents of influence, including Germans who bribed Lenin. Lenin and Trotsky are painted as very "bad guys" (actually, the image of Trotsky in the movies is distinctly antisemitic), while the Tzar, his Okhrana and successor Chekist organizations are painted as highly patriotic "good guys". This is a decisive break with old Soviet propaganda.My very best wishes (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Is this an attempt to undermine the last traces of communist/socialist/left thinking, since Putin is decidedly a right-wing autocrat? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Russians are screwed! Will Putin succeed, with Trump's very willing help, in destroying American democracy and instituting an autocratic kleptocracy, IOW his banana republic, with Trump as his first puppet ruler? Trump is already crippling our government so it can't function. The top functionaries have been fired and not replaced, and the head of the CIA is compromised. The GOP's efforts for many years to effectively gerrymander states and to create a very targeted system of voter suppression which guarantees them victories, even when they are in the minority, has also been very successful. I fear we're headed for a one-party state and Trump is our last elected president. When he leaves office, the GOP will control the process from here on out. Fake news controlled by the President will do the rest. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I think these fears already came true. What we had during last 2016 elections was a two-party system where each party was not able to produce a good candidate. Whole political system in the US (including the Congress) was already in a state of crisis. It just was "helped" a little from the outside to crash. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
"As the sources I have provided above show, the 19% figure mentioned in the dossier became an actual transaction, ending up in that Cayman Islands account. (I'm sure that was just a coincidence....)"
TheTimesAreAChanging, interesting, but Steele's report from October 18, 2016, detailing Page's meeting with Rosneft officials in July 2016, predates these sources. Do you have evidence to document that this 19% stake was already available?
Also, assuming that it was available, but hadn't found a taker, we still have the issue of it being offered to Trump in exchange for (a bribe/pay-to-play) him lifting the sanctions. That was a condition for him getting it, and therefore a huge motivation to do anything necessary to become president.
As for Page, we don't know what Trump was paying him to make this deal, but as Trump's representative/employee, and making the deal with Trump's "authority", he would expect some form of payment or benefit for making the deal on behalf of Trump. (But that's another subject of much lesser interest.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The 2013 source is interesting. So the 19% figure had been discussed, but the deal was delayed until a beneficiary, Trump, was found in 2016. Got it. That would explain all the secrecy surrounding the meeting between Page and Sechin, the murder of Steele's probably source for the information, and around the transfer of the money through shell companies and at least one illegal bank transaction. There was obvious illicit intent in what would otherwise be an ordinary sale. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
BTW, if you're at all curious about what the Rosneft deal actually means from a Russian with experience in the field—and why the "Trump-Rosneft connection is clearly a fake and a worthless conspiracy"—see here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I am naturally quite skeptical of such sources, as we know that Trump/Putin/FSB are doing damage control and spreading misinformation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
BP owns 19.75% of Rosneft, and has had no ability to influence any of the company's decisions. No foreign investor demonstrated any interest in sharing BP's fate as a minority shareholder, so the Russians arranged a sham "privatization" with Glencore not even bothering to appoint its token representative to Rosneft's board after Rosneft overtly buying its own shares was deemed politically undesirable. Because of this, the minority stake in Rosneft has low liquidity. As Vladimir Milov, a former Russian Deputy Minister of Energy with avowed anti-Trump and anti-Putin credentials (here he is described as "The Russian Opposition's Fresh Face"), states: "If Putin wanted to 'bribe' someone, it's much easier to just give him cash, and not the politically 'toxic' stake in a company under Western sanctions, with no real influence over decision-making."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
As you know [2], Trump did not disclose his tax returns even though he promised to do so during his election campaign. Given that and the dark/nontransparent nature of all Russian business in general (remember Panama papers), I would not outright dismiss anything, and especially on the basis of Russian "press" reports and LiveJournal comments by Russian politicians. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there any credible source that calls Carter Page a "businessman"? That's a first. I mean not a Russian tweet. SPECIFICOtalk 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I hope that helps. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I see that in Apr 4 NY Times. More often "advisor" "consultant" etc. Anyway there are more important chores for today. SPECIFICOtalk 04:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Ugh! No, I haven't looked at it. This whole #MeToo is turning into a "burn the whole city" affair, which unfortunately hampers progress in dealing with serious sexual predators. Lumping everyone together, even the jokes-in-poor-taste, serves no one well. I have been gathering material.
Regardless of what else happens to Franken, or if he has skeletons in his closet, this first accusation by Tweeden (the part about "groping") is false. He didn't touch her at all. It was just a joke in the air as he approached, but didn't touch. A two second joke en passant, with witnesses, all no doubt giggling quietly so as not to wake her. Poor taste, not sexual assault. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
That is not for us to decide. What it was depends on perception by the targeted person. Very same thing can be perceived by the targeted person as an innoncent joke or harassment (from instructions for students on campus, 101). My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but she has the disadvantage of not being a witness to the act itself. She reacted to the picture, her emotional response (understandable!) then created an imagined scenario, and then she publicly accused Franken of something he didn't do. That's a serious thing to do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and she's given several different accounts of this story, contradicting herself on several points. How does she know she was "groped" and "grabbed" -- not from the photo, even assuming it's not doctored. And where are the witnesses who were in the plane in tight quarters, including the photographer and those for whom he was showing off? The facts and circumstances make it particularly difficult to unpack the facts here. One must not deny her statement that she felt humiliated. Oddly, however she discussed her own bawdy behavior (documented in various photos) as being appropriate for an audience and a milieu of young men. Who's going to begin to untangle those cultural assumptions and roles? I did like the part where she candidly remarked on the air that those are not her natural breasts, anyway. Not that this would excuse Mr. Franken prankin'. SPECIFICOtalk 19:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
"the photo, even assuming it's not doctored. ... those are not her natural breasts, anyway." Wow!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
BTW, there is evidence the photo had been doctored, but we don't know if it was only the digital identification information or image itself. Check this. Regardless, the image does not show him touching her breasts or even the flak vest. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I agree that the current moral panic has long since devolved into a witchhunt with diminishing returns, but I still find SPECIFICO's rhetoric to be strikingly partisan and overheated.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Regardless to this particular episode, a very large number of sexual assault allegations about different people recently appeared. There is no doubt that most of the allegations are true. This is a sign that such behavior is no longer tolerated by society. I think this is also a good sign that US society would survive and recover, despite to the current efforts by US presidential administration and foreign actors. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to comment and offer help. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Renaming a user account vs creating a new one
Hi BullRangifer. I may have asked about this once before... I'm looking at either renaming my account or replacing mine with a new one. I'm wondering if you had some thoughts about choosing one option over the other. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier
I have redacted some of your latest edits to Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier as you apparently copied text in verbatim from the dossier without assertion that the dossier has been published under free compatible license, and because by adding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material your edits violated WP:BLP. If you're going to say "fair use", I don't think that will fly when you include about 12 kilobytes of text.
I have also asked for an administrator to review your edits and related user subpage, and use revision deletion, if they deem it necessary. Politrukki (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, thanks for this link. I wasn't aware of this deletion discussion and result at Commons. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
(Deletion log); 21:29 . . Primefac (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 99 revisions on page Donald Trump–Russia dossier: content hidden (RD1: Copyright violations: per WP:COPYVIOEL)
(Deletion log); 21:28 . . Primefac (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 100 revisions on page Donald Trump–Russia dossier: content hidden (RD1: Copyright violations: per WP:COPYVIOEL)
(Deletion log); 21:28 . . Primefac (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 93 revisions on page Donald Trump–Russia dossier: content hidden (RD1: Copyright violations: per WP:COPYVIOEL)
Now all the intermediary edits between July 18 and December 16 are hidden and the poor article contributors aren't properly attributed for their edits which are unrelated to this issue. This can't be right, right? Politrukki (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The edits, and thus attribution, are still there. Any administrator can see them, but the public cannot. This allows us to meet the CC-BY-SA 3.0 requirements of for our contributors while also not displaying copyrighted content to the public. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think you're right – and not only because I disagreed with myself immediately after I had published my message. But hiding individual edits is very problematic because the article is under "consensus required" page restriction. Politrukki (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Ummm...I'm obviously missing something here, but the basic size of the article has not changed, so where is the content that is oversighted? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing's been oversighted, just revdel'd. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, IIRC, that means it's only visible to admins. Is that correct?
I'm wondering how we can actually fix the situation with the article content (that has nothing to do with the talk pages or my workspace). Without seeing it, how can we learn what was wrong with the content? How can we improve it? We should hopefully come out of this situation as more enlightened editors, and better prepared to improve the article.
Right now I'm at a loss to see a way forward, other than to just give up and not edit at all, for fear of making a mistake. FIVE months of work by myriad editors has just been trashed, and that leaves a hopeless feeling. I'd really appreciate some help. What was specifically wrong? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
In short: no content, except the external link to Document Cloud, has been removed from the article. Revdel is hide, not revert & hide. If some admin would choose to unrevdel any of the intermediary edits, anyone could produce a diff/permalink where the copyvio link is visible to the world.
Revdel'd edits are only visible to admins. Suppressed (AKA "oversighted") edits are only visible to oversighters. The mistake somebody made was adding an external link to the dossier (the full document) to the article. This edit by Primefac removed the external link, which was in External links section, IIRC. Note that "revdel" is a misnomer because the revision is not actually deleted – the content is not reverted – revdel only changes the visibility of selected edits in page history. When I made the comment "This can't be right, right? above, I was not entirely right because I forgot that the copyvio link would be visible in all the intermediary diffs/permalinks. When in November I redacted your talk page BLP violation, see #Editing BLP material above, I chose not request revdel because I thought it would be infeasible to hide all edits between your OP and my revert(s).
Unless you're planning to deliberately infringe copyrights, you should have nothing to fear. But if material has been deleted on good-faith copyvio objections, it is unwise to restore material without consensus. Of course users who repeatedly infringe copyrights out of incompetence always have something to fear unless they correct their behaviour. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Politrukki, I really appreciate your response, and I pinged Primefac, who hasn't responded yet.
I have no intention of violating copyright. I wasn't aware that there was an issue and that it had been decided at Commons, and I'll respect that decision. I would never include such content in the article in anymore than a fair use manner. What I was working on was strictly for editorial purposes, where we obviously work with copyrighted material on talk pages all the time. There we decide what is too much to actually include. Including too much would be a copyvio. Keep in mind that only the article is part of the encyclopedia. Talk pages are not. (BTW, my own subpage is hidden from search engines.)
We're still left with the problem that editors can't know what is no longer visible, and therefore (1) cannot learn from this situation and (2) cannot fix the problems which created the need for hiding the content. That the content is visible to admins is irrelevant and unhelpful to the rest of us. It may as well have been oversighted. For us the effect is the same. Our work has been trashed without warning or opportunity to collaboratively fix any problems. Some sort of good faith backtracking needs to happen there.
The EL is easy enough to understand (the inclusion as a required source in the body is good enough, although EL does officially allow much worse as EL in myriad other articles (NOT an WP:Other stuff exists argument)), but the rest is hidden. We need answers about how to deal with that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The issue here is that despite it being an unindexed subpage it still is under the copyright rules of Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA), which means that it could be copied and used elsewhere. Thus, if it's a copyright violation it needs to be removed and revdel'd. It's unfortunate that you've lost the text, and if you like I can email you the content and you can continue working on it off-wiki, but unless there's a discussion that demonstrates the dossier definitely isn't under copyright, then it can't be on here. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Weighing in as Primefac pinged me off-wiki since I had been involved with the initial conversation: It is how he says. Every single revision of Wikipedia must be compatibly licensed with CC-BY-SA 3.0, and if it is not, we remove it immediately and revdel as soon as an admin becomes aware of it. We don't give a chance to fix because arguably that could be worse from an attribution standpoint (more intervening content being hidden), and because it has the ability to put other users and readers in legal jeopardy if they decide to reuse infringing work on their own. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Primefac and TonyBallioni, I think I understand and agree. At the time I wasn't aware of the copyright issue at Commons. That content has been deleted, and I don't think there's any copyvio left. If I'm mistaken, let me know. See my comments below. I would indeed appreciate getting a copy of what I was working on. Would my email work? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The issue with your user subpage still remains unresolved. Some of the allegations you have outlined are obvious BLP violations, some are clearly not BLP violations (e.g. report #2), and some may or may not contain BLP violations (depends on what the interpretation of "contentious" is). Perhaps you could reliably source some of the allegations, but would that really be worth of your time?
I would suggest you copy the contents of your subpage to a local text file and blank all the allegation. Then consider whether you need the "sandbox" at all. Finally, if the answer is "no", you should request speedy deletion per WP:U1. When the user subpage has been deleted, you may use review the local copy of the list. If some allegation is missing from the article, and you think it should be included, you may use the talk page to invite opinions.
I find what you wrote on the article talk page "Our sourcing policies allow that the subject of the article is a RS for its own opinions even if it's otherwise a totally unreliable source for other purposes." troubling. WP:BLPTALK does not allow posting unsourced or poorly sourced serious allegations on the talk page. You should review WP:BLPPRIMARY.
If you use the format "According to X1[link #1] and X2[link #2] the dossier alleges that person YY did ZZ" (and links point to respectable publications) or "Should we include the allegations from [link #3] in the article?", you're not violating BLPTALK and nobody should complain. This approach is also more likely to attract attention from your fellow editors than TLDR type of lists. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The following comment got caught in an edit conflict and was written without knowing about the two previous comments above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Politrukki, If I understand you correctly, there are two basic issues here: potential copyvio and BLP.
There is no longer an issue on this talk page. What's left on my hidden (from search engines) subpage is not a copyvio issue anymore. That part has been removed. What's left is the paraphrased summary, and the parts that are actual quotes are short enough to be fair use. Do you still see a copyvio issue with that? If so, I'll be happy to fix it.
Your last paragraph is very good. Unfortunately we never got to that phase. I was hoping for response so we could do that.
Any BLP issues are covered by proper sourcing and making it clear that they are allegations. We do this in articles all the time. BLP does not forbid negative information (NPOV requires we include it). It requires that we use good sourcing and make it clear that they are allegations. If confirmed to be true, then we state that, and in some cases can state even the worst types of accusations in Wikipedia's voice. Otherwise we attribute, source, and qualify. Do you see any BLP issues? Let me know and I'll fix it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"Just" one issue, which is BLP. You're dancing around the point, but still manage to miss it. Serious allegations that were previously cited to a poor source (the dossier itself) are now completely unsourced. NPOV mandates us to describe allegations as allegations, but per BLP (and WP:V) the existence of allegations must also be verifiable. Your subpage was, by definition, an attack page. We're past that now, but if you're not going to delete or source the allegations under "Final outline of allegations" that involve living persons, I will make some hard-handed deletions.
Your new subsection about ten key allegations is probably fine, but I'm wondering how you're going to take use of it. If you'll just dump a list on the article talk page, that's not going to be very helpful. You know that the hardest part is finding what the reliable sources say about allegations, filtering out outdated information, and giving each viewpoint due weight. Politrukki (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Politrukki, they were sourced, but those sources were deleted. If the issue is that you don't consider the Dossier a RS about itself, then I'll have to add more RS which quote the dossier. There are many major secondary RS which do that, and they name names. Would that solve the problem? In the mean time, due to lack of time right now, I'll remove names. I may not be able to see any reply for a number of hours, so don't expect an immediate response. I really appreciate your help. It's always good to have more eyes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Removing names is a suboptimal solution, but I'll accept that. If you can find high-quality sources that name names, you can follow their lead. Politrukki (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Joseph C. Keating Jr
He was Professor at Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, but didn't ever practice? Rathfelder (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
That's right. He knew more about the history of the profession than anyone else, but was only a professor of psychology and history. He was President of the Association for the History of Chiropractic. I used to email with him and get information. He was very helpful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Accupuncture
Category:Acupuncture is in the Alternative medicine category. The article itself doesn't need to be. Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Could you take a look at FTN and perhaps comment on your opinion on the wider discussion. Thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus.barcus 14:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The things vs the Office of the Things.
I see you've not only objected to the special counsel investigation's article title, but its usage of common "special counsel". I object to this second objection for the same reason I object to people writing the United States Department of Education promotes Education or the Food and Drug Administration deals in Food and Drugs. I'd revert you, but admittedly, that first move was a bit bold already. So I'll just kindly ask you rethink your policy toward government agencies and the generic things they involve. InedibleHulk(talk) 07:30, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
Good point. I'll take a look and maybe revert certain edits which aren't referring directly to the titular person. I may have gotten mixed up. In case I don't understand you completely, feel free to point out any I miss. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I have looked and I'm not sure if there are any to change back. I'll defer to an expert on the subject. Do we have some type of project or noticeboard? Alternatively, just start a totally new discussion on the talk page and get other eyes looking at this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm no legal or government expert, but have been reading English since I was two. In my eyes, all but two of these should be lowercase, because they refer to the person by job description, rather than title. He's Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, but also special counsel for a department regarding justice, if you catch my drift. Alternatively, we could call him "Mueller", because it's shorter and his name.
I don't know about a noticeboard, but we have MOS:JOBTITLES. You could look at the References section of the article. The New York Times, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times and Associated Press are in agreement with themselves, me and our style guide. Is that enough? InedibleHulk(talk) 01:46, January 3, 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really sure. Go ahead and revert what you feel proper. The idea of just saying "Mueller" sounds even better. That might work a lot of the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I did, and it does. I mainly left "special counsel" in places like "special counsel team" or "special counsel investigation". Kept the full title Nice and Proper, like it is in the infobox picture. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:27, January 3, 2018 (UTC)
Good work. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
And thank you for your work on The Mercury News. A lot of people don't appreciate how seriously period placement can alter a quote. Many others don't even notice which side it's on while they're looking at it. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:41, January 3, 2018 (UTC)
@Politrukki:, I actually agreed with your removing the comment (although you should have removed the previous comment also). The rest of your warning here about me being forced to template BullRangifer suggests your purpose is other than improving the encyclopedia.- MrX 12:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer's previous comment was already replied to, so I did chose not remove it, even with all the personal attacks. Thanks for your assumption of bad faith, but with "will be forced to template" I was jokingly referring to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. It's an essay that is sometimes enforced like a policy. I mostly disagree with the essay but I mostly don't have the courage to template the regulars. Politrukki (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
Notice removed for archiving.
You broke 1RR with these two edits: [4][5]. Please self-revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. I expect you will self-revert per talk. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Improving a ref is allowed. Did that quote have some purpose? If so, I'll gladly restore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleting a quotation in a footnote that another editor put there a few hours ago is obviously a revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe you're right. I though it was a nobrainer. Since you're disputing it, I'll contact the one who put it there and ask their opinion and then do the right thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh! YOU put it there. What purpose do these words serve? Do they add anything or tell us anything we haven't already documented?: "Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote an explosive ‘dossier’ containing damning allegations about President Trump's purported links to Russia." -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I have restored it. Either you or someone else can delete it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. In my opinion, the quote reminds the reader who Steele is, and reminds the reader that Steele is not just some neutral benefactor of the public good but rather is someone who has made damning allegations and whose findings are only purported rather than proved. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
In a different article that information would be relevant, but in this, of all articles, it is exactly where it adds nothing not already found in abundance. It's sorta the main subject.... I'll wait to see what happens. If it doesn't get deleted, I'll start a discussion, and I doubt that you'll look good defending it. Think about it. Maybe you'll come to a different conclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
As I recall, you wanted to remind the reader (in text, not merely in a footnote) who Steele is, namely the exposer of wrongdoing. Anyway, see you later. And I shouldn’t have to object in order for you to comply with 1RR. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw your {{adminhelp}} template on Walsak's talk page. I'd recommend bringing this up at WP:ANI, which is the correct venue for such a discussion—I'm going to remove the template for now. GorillaWarfare(talk) 22:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, that's too much trouble for an easy IAR situation. Let them run wild and destroy Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It depends on how they are used. Breitbart is considered extremely partisan and often deceptive (that's the nature of the work of the late Breitbart and his protege O'Keefe). They deliberately try to use deceptive methods, get busted, and their fraudulent work exposed. Strangely enough, BNN is not on Wikipedia:Spam blacklist yet, but if you keep abusing this situation, that could be the result. Stop edit warring.
Salon isn't usually the most authoritative news source, but they do make an effort, and unless an article is outright false, it can usually be used. This is done on a case by case basis. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I see the most recent edits made by myself on ACORN 2009 were reverted and I don't see why. The external links were relevant as was the section saying these articles were published on Breitbart News. If you agree with me could you re-instate my edits. Cheerio --2001:8003:54DA:E600:88D7:8348:50BD:8B0F (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Breitbart is not a reliable source becuase their coverage is extremely slanted, they make a lot of mistakes which they are frequently don't retract, and because they are not usually cited by other reliable sources except when they are the subject of coverage. This has community consensus (Search WP:RSN archives). Salon is generally not considered a reliable source for similar reasons, although to a lesser extent if I recall correctly.- MrX 13:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed this thread, there was a write up I was recently shown dealing with the subject of partisan/POV/Bias sources that might help supplement this discussion WP:YESBIAS. PackMecEng (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Offered for your grokking
I respect you and your candor.
Due to article talk page restrictions, my position is grossly misinterpreted by all there.
Given your last (hatted) offering there, allow me to offer: What I’m stumped by is why much of the Left-Liberal-Progressive camp is carrying water for the MIC. Humanengr (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I recognize the term "carrying water for". It was used the other day about the GOP leadership: "It's pretty clear that Grassley and Graham are interested in carrying water for the White House."[6] But MIC? What's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Same language, different framings. For the moment, can we recede Trump into the background, to the point of ignoring what he did and considering him only as an object of investigation?
With me so far? [We come from very similar political orientations; I just need to ask you to set aside some assumptions.] Humanengr (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't get your first question ("With me...?") Is that in response to something? On my talk page you can feel free to be verbose, IOW speak more plainly and fully. I won't mind at all. I don't want to guess. This is a safe zone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Duh! It just dawned on me that you meant "Are you with me so far?" I must have been tired. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The q was re if you’re willing, for sake of discussion, to set issues of Trump’s actions aside and focus only on his being an object of investigation. (In your hatted comment on the article talk page, you focused on the former.) Will write more below. Humanengr (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry — missed your q re MIC = Military-Industrial Complex. Humanengr (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah! My mind went to Men In Coats for some odd reason, but I couldn't be sure. I have no special fondness for the death industry (the entire weapons industry, civilian and military).[7] Only one member of my family has served in the military, as a photographer in Vietnam. Otherwise I respect our soldiers. Their work is important, but I feel they are often misused in the service of political/financial interests. Our wars aren't always as altruistic and concentrated on spreading democracy and defending the oppressed as we'd like to think. The MIC has an agenda that is often suspect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Now I had to look up Men in Coats. (Not much of a tv watcher.) One more q for context-setting: I take it you’re familiar with Neoliberalism and have thoughts on that? Humanengr (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to go now, but I'm not even familiar with Men In Coats, and, although I'm familiar with the concept of Neoliberalism, haven't delved into it. Not quite sure where I am in that regard. I'm rather a complex mixture. Otherwise I'm totally open for friendly sharing and discussion, so go for it. I'll be eagerly waiting to see what you have written when I get back. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thx — Note 6 on the Neoliberalism page ends with a quick partial summary: “In its simplest version, it reads: markets good, government bad." Philip Mirowski, cited in note 23, has an excellent history and critique in his More Heat than Light book. I’ll refer to it by Mirowski’s handle ‘NTC’ for Neoliberal Thought Collective’.
Without delving further into the mechanics of the NTC, I’ll start with a simple summary statement that the NTC and the MIC (and their comrades, the neocons) set the context for domestic and foreign affairs. It’s a little more complex than that, but that’s enough to set the stage for my next question:
Which domestic constituencies do you think have benefitted and will benefit the most from pressure on Trump? Humanengr (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really comfortable discussing in the context of those boxes, probably because I don't fit in any one box, and I don't completely understand them because I haven't studied each school of thought. I do know pretty well where I stand on the left/right spectrum (solid left liberal, right fiscal conservative, conservative Constitutionalist, rule of law, blah, blah).
I believe that no one who works full time should be paid less than a lower middle class income, thus disqualifying them for welfare. Employers should not be allowed to underpay workers, forcing them to use welfare (an increased financial burden for society), while keeping too much of the profits for themselves. At the same time, these wealthy people tend to use loopholes unavailable to ordinary people, pay less in taxes, and hide income in offshore accounts, and thus they are playing the "tough capitalism for the poor and middle class, and socialist welfare for themselves).
It's too expensive for the economy when hard working people have to work 2-3 jobs, have no leisure time or vacation, and still can't even afford to participate in society and be contributing members of society (in a financial sense). They are barely surviving, and they aren't lazy. They don't want to be carried by others through dependence on welfare, but they have no choice. If the bottom income was higher, very few would be on welfare, and most people would be pumping their money into a thriving capitalist economy. The greedy 0.001% are who are harming America, and they should be stopped. The only reason we can't do this in America is a lack of will to do it. We can certainly afford it.
My personal preference is Social Democracy, as seen in Scandinavia and some other European countries, all with mixed market capitalist economies. I'm a strong believer in social justice as espoused by John Rawls (and many others).
I'm 66 and have lived in six countries: right-wing military dictatorship (S. Korea); right-wing civilian faux "democracy" dictatorship (Philippines), with both supported by the USA; American vulture capitalist democracy; Danish Social Democracy; and Greenland socialism to the point where my business was nationalized. Therefore my political views are based on actually living in these systems and seeing their strengths and weaknesses. The Danish Social Democracy works the best and is the most just.
I don't know if all that helps, but it at least lets you know where I'm coming from, and all without mentioning "he who must not be named". -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thx very much for that discursive exposition and as part of that, your personal foreign survey; and also for your article talk page comment re Himes. There are some issues I could pursue in isolation here on the former, but think they can all be addressed under the neolib-neocon framing, so I’ll elaborate that a bit more. (We’re of the same age cohort, as I had guessed, and share some perspective; you certainly have more in-depth personal experience with those foreign systems.)
In effect, neolibs promote wealth concentration (and exogenize costs) and neocons support that by appropriating foreign resources, all with palatable rubrics like ‘invisible hand’, ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’.
Does that make sense? (I’m trying to stay focused on my last question: “Which domestic constituencies …?”; so I might need to say a bit more. I’m not meaning to make you ‘guess’, as you said above, but think things generally work better in concise bytes. :) ) Humanengr (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I can safely add this re your “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it”: Concentration of wealth or, more properly, concentration of access to power — is an avenue as you appropriately noted that is unavailable to the rest of us.
The problem is without that access, movements grounded in terms of “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it” are doomed. Humanengr (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and thx for your identification as “solid left liberal, right fiscal conservative, conservative Constitutionalist, rule of law, blah, blah”.
I can speak to each of those in the context of the neolib-neocon framing as well. I also appreciate the clarity of your exposition and found myself highlighting key terms in each of your sentences that can be similarly addressed in terms of that framing,
But for now, I want to stay focused on the question: Which domestic constituencies do you think have benefitted and will benefit the most from pressure on Trump? Or in more elaborate form, what does anyone who has any ostensibly leftist proclivities think they have, are, or will accomplish with this that has not been, is not, and will not be self-defeating to their professed interests, domestically or internationally? Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn’t mean to stump you. On another point, to clarify, does “conservative Constitutionalist” mean you approve the Citizens United decision? Humanengr (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a poor decision which undermines the strength of the individual. It gives too much power to wealthy individuals by allowing one person who owns a corporation to use their wealth to outspend individual citizens. One person shouldn't have more rights than another.
Another area where I'm a Constitutionalist is a firm belief in the Separation of church and state. Don't even get me started on gun control, where I believe that the NRA is misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment for profit and ignoring safety issues. The Constitution is open to some interpretation and common sense, and that's how the courts have interpreted it. The idea that individual gun ownership can't be modified in some ways is a relatively modern idea. The 2nd Amendment right is met if an individual in sound mind and not a criminal can own one single-shot gun and some ammo. That bare-bones interpretation is all that's guaranteed. I'm personally in favor of a few guns with limited magazine size, not huge collections and military style weapons. I used to hunt in Greenland (I lived there) and managed just fine with the limitation of no semi-autos and no larger than a five-shot chamber. You can read my article Reindeer hunting in Greenland. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I think we agree re Citizens United. Using my language above, it effectively promotes concentration of wealth by granting wealthy individuals privileged access to power. Does that phrasing make sense to you? Humanengr (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does. America should be a classless society with equal rights and equal political representation for all. When power and wealth corrupt the political process, we are doomed. Currently we're headed for a (effectively) one-party kleptocratic plutocracy like Russia's, and it's being done very quickly and deliberately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The guiding lights for that move toward kleptocratic plutocracy (I love that phrasing) is provided by the neolibs. And direction-setting for the agenda of foreign ‘intervention’ you termed ‘suspect’ is set by the neocons. Together, by promoting ‘Corporate personhood’, ‘spreading democracy’, ‘national security’, etc., they grow more and more powerful. Does that now start to make sense as a framing? Humanengr (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Still a bit unsure, but that makes Trump a neocon and neolib. I'm not sure about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Your response is very helpful. Now — think back before the election. (No, I’m not Svengali.) Would you have thought of Trump as neocon then? Humanengr (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Trump has promised to improve ties with Putin after a frosty relationship with the Obama administration …
Do you detect a change since then? Humanengr (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
See, e.g., Under Trump, U.S.-Russian Relations Hit New Low from foreignpolicy.com in July. Does that comport with your sense of a change? I’m not asking if it’s good or bad or right or wrong, just whether you take that as a fair characterization of the change. Humanengr (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I see them as mixed signals from a fluctuating relationship, and as a reflection of the secret relationship between Trump and Putin, and it's intersection with the public, national, relationship between the two countries, and the two of them "keeping up appearances" as the leaders of somewhat unfriendly countries.
Their secret relationship is complex due to many alleged factors in the Trump-Russia relationship going back over at least eight years. I have a long list, but due to BLP concerns won't list them here, though they are all from RS. There are alleged illegal deals made, agreements not fulfilled, crimes covered up, and embarrassment over the conspiracy becoming public.
Putin's support for Trump has therefore waxed and waned, including nearly trying to get Trump to drop out of the presidential race. The existence of unfulfilled agreements and public embarrassments creates tension in the relationship. We're seeing that. Publicly they both have to play the game and not get embarrassed in front of their own people. The whole thing makes one sick of politics. It's often dirty business. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Who in the U.S. benefits the most from increased tension between U.S. and Russia? Humanengr (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do people try to hide Breitbart's right-wing status?
I find it odd that people are ashamed of and try to hide what Breitbart is proud of. They are openly right-wing and are rabidly against anything left-wing. (That last part is a big clue about their orientation and place on the left/right political spectrum.) Why hide it?
There is a long distance from center to Nazis and KKK. Very few right-wingers go that far. They are are just a bit more extreme right-wing than Breitbart, but close enough that they love Breitbart because it carries water for them. Bannon and Breitbart (deceased) are very racist and anti-Muslim. Only 3% got their news from Breitbart in 10/21/14. That's extreme right-wing and very far from center. Only a few outlets are more extreme, among them Hannity, Beck, and Infowars. Now that we have a racist president who likes Fox News, Breitbart, and Infowars, I suspect that the number of clueless people who use those sources has increased. That's really sad.
No wonder research has shown that Trump spews out more misinformation than actual fake news sources:
"It feels like there’s a connection between having an active portion of a party that’s prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you’re describing.
"It’s worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it’s also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (Emphasis added.)
From the regular disputes at Jared Taylor, my impression is that the extreme right pushes very hard against being labeled for what they are. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
They sure don't hold back from labeling the left and liberals as "left-wing", which they are. I'm proud of the label. It puts me in good company with JFK, MLK, etc.
I suspect we're dealing with people who don't really understand the historic French origins of the left-right labels, and where they are really placed on that spectrum. They think that it's desirable to be neutral and center, and therefore, seeing themselves as ideal persons, identify themselves as such, when they are actually on the fringes of the left-wing or right-wing.
Many of them know that being fringe and extreme is not good, and that the public looks down on such people, and don't see themselves that way, even though they are. Everyone naturally wants to see themselves as good, balanced, and intelligent. Well, people of that type tend to stay fairly close to either side of center, and tend to avoid getting too extreme. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
A question about copyright violation (link to the dossier)
Hi, BullRangifer. I see that you deleted a link to the Trump-Russia dossier that was in the "External links" section of the Trump–Russia dossier article. You explained "We can use it as an internal source with secondary sources, but WP:COPYVIOEL forbids its use as an External link due to copyright issues. WE)"
"I agree. It is NEVER a copyright violation to link to a source. So we should link to it, and link to a hosting site which is known as a RS, IOW a stable site. This link was "Contributed by: Mark Schoofs, BuzzFeed," (he is a Pulitzer-prize winner), and this is the "Related Article". It's great because we can view it in three different versions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)"
So, you later changed your mind? Mksword (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did. It is still NEVER a copyright violation to link to a source, but I had forgotten about the rules for External links, which forbid linking to such sites. We apparently don't want to support sites which violate copyright.
We can still use the link in the body of the article, but not as an EL, and even then with care because it's the primary source. We can even quote the dossier in smaller bits under fair use, especially if we do it while quoting a secondary source which is quoting it. We can also paraphrase carefully. Right now we use the actual link only once, right in the lead. There are abundant secondary sources which have the same content and we can link to their articles. Most of them have the content in small bits covered by "fair use".
There are also BLP issues, so when using names we must be using secondary RS which use the names, and sometimes attributing the source. Denials of allegations should also be included, and that the allegations are just that, it should be repeated often. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer: You say that we can still use the link in the body of the article, but not as an EL. I don't know what you mean by "not as an EL". Mksword (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
EL=External link: "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[3] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."
We don't actually know if BuzzFeed is violating copyright by having the dossier hosted, but we're being extra careful. Neither Fusion GPS, Orbis, or Steele have made any copyright claim or sued BuzzFeed for copyright infringement. Not even a hint in that direction. Regardless, myriad RS do quote passages from the dossier, and we can then quote it when we are citing them as secondary sources. That's my understanding. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, thank you! Mksword (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer. Are you going to place your draft into main space? To me it looks fine, either as a section of main page on the subject or as an independent page. Speaking about linking, there are two things here, if I understand correctly. (a) On can make links to sites like YouTube, but it is important to make sure that specific link you used did not lead to YouTube record that was a copyright violation. (b) links "to generally avoid" can be used in certain cases, i.e. if they help to improve a page, but there are no better links available. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I hope to use it as a replacement for the current Contents section. I have brought over pretty much everything there, developed much more, and used better sources. I want to be very careful about copyright, and have kept within fair use limits. I also use secondary sources. If a secondary source engages in interpretation, then I have sought to attribute the comment, but if it's straight documentation, then attribution is unnecessary. If you see anything that could be problematic, please let me know on the talk page there. I won't dump it into the article without have others check it out. My aim is to strictly document the main allegations which have been commented on by multiple secondary RS. Some allegations have been completely ignored, so I have also ignored them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think merging this to main page would be fine. Also, this is good point that certain claims should not be included if they were not mentioned in secondary RS. Otherwise, they might be regarded as WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Or more likely OR. We are allowed to use a primary source within limits, but normally it must be because secondary/tertiary sources have commented on it. Then we can use both the secondary and the primary source. What we are not allowed to do is cherry pick whatever we want from primary sources, if it has been ignored by secondary ones. That's OR. Does that make sense to you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, agree - as described in policy. And that is obviously important, I agree. In historical context, I am thinking about the case of Urho Kekkonen - see here, but he was obviously an entirely different person, and according to some historians he was actually the one who used his KGB contacts to advantage of Finland. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
My very best wishes, feel free to comment and provide suggestions for improvement there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I've visited Finland. What's that about? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
That was a Finnish president who was officially listed by KGB as their agent and actually met his KGB curators. He put phrases in his speeches which were sent to him from the Soviet Politbureau, and he was actually sending back to the Soviet Union people who tried to escape to Finland. But he did it (according to some historian) to advantage of Finland which was dependent from the SU in many aspects. Sorry, this is not something we can discuss in detail here. 141.213.168.110 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump–Russia dossier allegations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Atsme📞📧 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, BR! Just a thought: I hope you have kept a copy of the allegations article someplace where you can work on it. Partly because it needs a lot more work; the information is very incomplete with most of the items missing their subsections of commentary. But mostly so that your hard work will not be lost if the AfD results in delete. Because if that happens we are going to want to put most of the information into the main article. Maybe gradually, maybe as a whole, maybe under s hide/show button, but we need to include this kind of detail in some format. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I've thought of that. Right now the "keeps" lead the pack by far, and some of the "deletes" use totally spurious arguments. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, if it was me I'd keep a copy somewhere anyhow. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The AfD for Trump–Russia dossier allegations is subject to DS which includes a Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This was a PA - it was uncivil and unwarranted. Please mind your manners. Atsme📞📧 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll refactor it to sum up the necessary details. Do keep in mind that you have been attacking me for some time. Karma? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that your emphasis on these Trump-related subjects is constantly negative, rather than actual editing to improve and add content. That's going to create a negative atmosphere which irritates people, and it makes you the focus of their attention. That's not good for you or anyone.
I suspect you can create good content. Why not do that? POV warriors rarely find peace here. Been there and done that.
You may not have noticed, but some editors have made some very specific criticisms of both articles, and I have sought to accept their criticisms and actually fix the problems. I respond well to constructive criticism that is specific. That can be fixed.
Vague and broad personal attacks with policy flag waving, as you have done, is unhelpful. It can't be fixed. There is no specific target. Be specific, and in a collaborative way. We're supposed to be on the same side here.
BR, if you're going to accuse me of PA, please provide the diffs. I strongly advise you to stop doing what you're doing - I have no agenda - perhaps you should review my user page. I didn't fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday, and I do know PAGs quite well. It is very unbecoming of you to behave combatively constantly casting aspersions against me - it is not conducive to a collegial environment. Again, provide the diffs that support your egregious claims about me. Atsme📞📧 02:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
@BR (about your comment - the diff). (a) people frequently change an opinion during an AfD - that's OK, (b) you can't claim that an AfD was made in a bad faith if a number of other people voted "delete" or "merge", (c) even if no one supported a nominator X on AfD, he/she still could be acting in a good faith - that happens; (d) everyone has a POV, but you must be able to communicate with people who disagree with you, unless this is really an obvious an misbehavior on their part (if the latter - this needs to be reported to administrative noticeboards, but I do not see it here). My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
1 week seems like a long block for this comment [8] - especially since your block log has only one 12 hour block from 2006 (!) - this is a DS block so maybe if you appeal at AE it could be shortened? It has already been 24 hours, hasn't it? Seraphim System(talk) 06:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
A seemingly forgotten part of our blocking process (applicable to every form of block, whether DS related or not): This user has the power to always state how they understand they committed violations of the DS system by violating WP:UNCIVIL, and could discuss with the blocking administrator (in this case, me) whether a reduction is possible. So far however, this user has made no attempt to do that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Look, I know you want to help the site... it's just that the discussions can get thrown off (and even people like yourself's intentions can get mirepresented once tempers start to flare). How about this... you promise to abide by the civility restriction, and simply in the future report to me or the admins at WP:AE if you think someone is trying to violate WP:NPOV in the topic area, etc... and I'll remove the block immediately? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate that. I'll definitely be careful. I just want to improve things. The article is growing and needs more balance in some areas. I'll contact you if I feel the need for advice, and that does happen. Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. If I had known I could just ask you, I would have done it. I thought I had to go through that AE process. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer. I completely agree with you and MelanieN about this. Speaking about administrative actions in DS area, the "discretionary" means "subjective". A lot of them seem unfair, and in fact are unfair. Such is life. I did not check your edit history before. Now I can see, but would not talk about any personal matters. I am not using email for WP purposes for a good reason. Welcome to contribute here if you like it. Fortunately for me, I have better things to do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I'll move on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back
Welcome back to editing, BullRangifer! Your story of real-life harassment sounds horrible; glad it did not discourage you for life. Wikipedia is still worth your energy. Kudos to Coffee for reaching out and hearing your arguments. — JFGtalk 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Who knows what or when this will materialize? Do you want to help? Do you have suggestions? In the meantime, it will reside on a subpage hidden from search engines, just like all my userpages. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid that such possible subjects probably will cross the line of WP:Attack page: your T&T may be destroyed with TNT (meaning the "nuclear option" for newly created pages). How about Fact checking in US politics? There could be other suggestions. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
That would be an odd, and extremely bad faith, application of TNT, because it's not an attack page, but a collection of RS. We encourage editors to develop content, and the basis is the collection of RS.
Fact checking in US politics sounds like an interesting and notable subject. Nothing wrong with that, but the subjects I have mentioned above are undoubtedly notable and well-sourced. Or are we already into an Orwellian post-truth era where even Wikipedia violates its own policies in order to protect the supreme leader from properly sourced criticism? Does he have that much power here? Is he acting like Putin? Are we now part of Russia?
Seriously, what side are you on? Whose side is Wikipedia on? I thought it was neutral and guided by RS and notability. I'm really wondering what's happening here. Wikipedia should never threaten or intimidate editors because they are interested in potentially controversial subjects. Even a cursory look at those sources and you'll see it's very notable and backed by some of the greatest and most notable minds and authors around.
I'm already feeling the chilling effect because you mentioned the possibility of TNT on my private subpage which isn't even visible to search engines. This is really scary. I don't want to have to move again. -- BullRangifer (talk)
Well, that was about WP:TNT. Of course you can try to create "T&T" pages, but I would expect them to be deleted by community. I can be wrong of course. But informally speaking, I do not think one should blame the president for everything. This is also the legislature and the electorate. What is really going to damage the US? New tax law and the atrocious budget with funds directed to the military, rather than to science, education, technology and other meaningful fields. They believe lies because they want to believe. Overall, this is all self-destruction of US from within. That is what perpetrators of 911 wanted. Of course I do not know for sure, but even the terrorists of 19th century claimed that their purpose was to trigger self-destruction of the Empire. Yes, they finally succeeded. All right, I will not bother you again. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I definitely don't blame Trump for everything, but the subject of this thread has nothing to do with that. It only has to do with his long and well-documented history of a dubious relationship to the very idea of "truth". There are reasons why his lawyers always meet with him in twos, whenever possible, and why they don't want him to meet with Mueller. They know him well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't a vote in any manner, but an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is specifically disallowed in such situations. That editor is not here to build an encyclopedia and constant violates Not a forum. Just the last one alone allows for removal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Then take it to ani or another drama board. If someone wants to make a fool of themselves you are not the judge to remove it. Especially how involved you are in this. Even if it was not removing a vote from an RFC you know better. PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, it was not a vote. If it had been a vote, I wouldn't have removed it. Since you insist, I'll restore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." -- BullRangifer
I read your posts on my talk page here [9] and here [10] and frankly, your comments are frightening. Please, in the future, if you are trying to help me grow and succeed as an editor, speak more kindly. If you do that, I'll have an easier time believing that you are not trying to bully me. Xerton (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Xerton, my sincerest apologies. This old man does tend to come across a bit brusquely at times. Consider my comments as advice to prevent problems in the future. I wouldn't have commented if I didn't care. I trust you can do better. There is no reason why we can't edit collaboratively here:
"The best content is developed through collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view. Everyone is biased, and it is natural for humans to be blind to their own biases; we tend to suffer from confirmation biases and the Dunning–Kruger effect. Therefore other editors provide an important counterbalancing service when they spot and correct the consequences of our biased editing. When pointing out such editing errors, it is important to follow the Golden Rule and assume good faith in fellow editors. No one is perfect."
BTW, the New York Post ([11]) is rarely a RS. It's a sensationalist and partisan rag very similar to the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail, both of which are nearly banned here. See RfC and here. It's best not to read, trust, or use them at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Kessler
Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, has analyzed an accusation made by Devin Nunes in a February 7, 2018, interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show: "The truth is that they [Democrats] are covering up that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign."
Kessler's "Pinocchio Test" rating was: "[T]here is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele's reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele. That's where Nunes's claim goes off the rails — and why he earns Four Pinocchios."[1] "Four Pinocchios" equals a "Whopper" (outright lie).[2]
There is a Russia investigation without a dossier
On February 3, 2018, Trump praised the Nunes memo and tweeted: "This memo totally vindicates 'Trump' in probe. But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on. Their [sic] was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction." Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) disagreed, stating on February 4 on CBS’ Face the Nation: "I actually don't think it has any impact on the Russia probe." He went on to say:
"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said. "So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."[3]
"The best content is developed through civil collaboration..." box
You recently left a post on my talk page which directly criticized me as a person. Please confine your comments to the efficacy and quality of my edits themselves. If you comment about me as a person, I will delete your comment. Thank you. Xerton (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Criticism is made to a person about their actions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a rough ride here. To avoid getting criticism, learn from more experienced editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I did not like you saying to me that I have an "odd attitude". I think that's a gratuitous and derisive comment and I think it's beneath the dignity of a person who presents as being committed to collaboration. Please refrain from placing ad hominem negatives on my talk page. Your comment has been moved to my chastisement archive, Xerton (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
C'est la vie. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Nice template, however I would advise you to list the date in ISO format in the name tag, e.g. "Harding-20171115". This would avoid confusion between British-style and US-style conventions over the order of day and month. Feel free to erase my comment after reading it. — JFGtalk 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN, I have some questions about the List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations. For some odd reason hardly anyone has tried to edit it, so I haven't gotten any constructive input about alternative ways to format or word things.
What about the section headings? They are my own formulations, based on what became apparent as common themes describing those allegations which naturally fell together.
Those wordings could be worded differently, and some maybe more neutrally, and there is no requirement for this particular way of setting up the page. It just seemed like a more presentable way of displaying them, rather than a dry list with total randomness, unlike in the dossier, where certain allegations are first stated simply, and later repeated with added "facts" from more of his sources. They are thus spread out, but are really the same set of allegations. I have just placed them together, as the secondary sources have done.
Is the start of each line using the bolded Allegation overkill?
I want it to be VERY plain that these are indeed allegations, not statements of fact or something made up by editors. They are often exact quotes from the dossier, as quoted in secondary sources. In some instances they have been slightly paraphrased, but remain extremely close to the source. Conscientious paraphrasing is allowed here, but with controversial stuff like this, exact quoting is often best.
I'm so close to the subject that I'm a bit blind to some of this now, and more eyes are needed. I'd like hear your thoughts on the matter. Any other suggestions would be very welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Something slightly different, yet related.... In the section above this one, "Interesting comments", at the bottom of that section, there are some false allegations made against me. She often makes personal attacks against me, like during the AfD, but just does it without using my name. It's still hurtful and unfair, and poisons the well against me. It's subtle character assassination. I have been tempted to seek a topic ban or interaction ban, but all I'd really like to see is for her to just drop it. Do you think there is anything to what she says there? Be honest. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, BR, I’ve been neglecting you. Mainly because I don’t have the ambition to actually go through the report and compare it to what you have done. I would much rather AGF that you were diligent and neutral and got it right. I suspect that’s what everybody else did too. But I understand your desire for another pair of eyes, and I will take a look at your titles and format and give you any feedback that occurs to me.
As for your second question, I do not have anything to say. I usually prefer not to state any opinion on other editors’ comments (once in a while I can’t help myself). I know everybody acknowledges that I am there as a regular editor, but still they ask me about this kind of thing - and I know they will impute, to whatever I say, a kind of admin-foo that isn’t intended. If I do see something that strikes me as over the line I will often say something to the person, but I prefer not to comment on “look at what s/he said!” kind of questions. Sorry about that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I totally understand and respect you for that. Otherwise, don't break your back on this, but whatever feedback you can give will be appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
