Misplaced Pages

• BullRangifer: Subpages
• User rights
• Edit count
• Edit summary search
• Articles created
• Global: contributions
• log
• accounts

I like to choose a ref name which will remain unique, so I use the last name(s) of the author(s) and publication date. Here's how it works:

<ref name="Harding_11/15/2017">{{cite web | last=Harding | first=Luke | title=How Trump walked into Putin's web | website=The Guardian | date=November 15, 2017 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke | access-date=December 24, 2017}}</ref>

An alternative date format is the ISO format: "Harding-20171115"

References

1. Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, TB

See: Fake news

Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign

A 2018 study by researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter has examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. The findings showed that Trump supporters and older Americans (over 60) were far more likely to consume fake news than Clinton supporters. Those most likely to visit fake news websites were the 10% of Americans who consumed the most conservative information. There was a very large difference (800%) in the consumption of fake news stories as related to total news consumption between Trump supporters (6.2%) and Clinton supporters (0.8%).

The study also showed that fake pro-Trump and fake pro-Clinton news stories were read by their supporters, but with a significant difference: Trump supporters consumed far more (40%) than Clinton supporters (15%). Facebook was by far the key "gateway" website where these fake stories were spread, and which led people to then go to the fake news websites. Fact checks of fake news were rarely seen by consumers, with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check.

Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

NBC NEWS: "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."

NYHAN: "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."

References

1. ^ Guess, Andrew; Nyhan, Brendan; Reifler, Jason (January 9, 2018). "Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign" (PDF). Dartmouth.edu. Retrieved February 4, 2018.
2. ^ Sarlin, Benjy (January 14, 2018). "'Fake news' went viral in 2016. This professor studied who clicked". NBC News. Retrieved February 4, 2018.
3. "Fake news and fact-checking websites both reach about a quarter of the population - but not the same quarter". Poynter Institute. January 3, 2018. Retrieved February 5, 2018.

POLICY:

Shortcuts

• WP:PUBLICFIGURE
• WP:WELLKNOWN

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

• Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

EMPHASIS ADDED: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

A few things to note about this:

1. There is a difference between how we handle public figures and relatively unknown persons. Misplaced Pages follows normal practice in real life, especially libel laws, where public persons are less protected than others. In the USA, a public person can rarely win a libel lawsuit; the bar to overwhelm the First amendment is set very high.

   Added to that is the unfortunate fact that Barrett v. Rosenthal protects the deliberate online repetition (not the original creation) of known libelous information found on the internet: a "user of interactive computer services" is "immune from liability ". The internet is the Wild West, where a law actually protects the spreading of proven lies.

   This is sad, and we do not participate in the spreading of lies, unless multiple RS have documented it. That's where we are forced to get involved, but here we also include more details and denials, and we label them as "allegations" until proven true.

2. If the conditions are met (noteworthy, relevant, and well documented), "it belongs in the article".
3. "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The subject has a COI and has no right to have it removed from Misplaced Pages or to stop us from covering it. By being a public person, they have relinquished the right to privacy, even of negative information. The WMF legal department will rarely side with such attempts where editors are properly following this policy.
4. Allegations must be labeled "allegation". Important.
5. If they have denied the allegation, their denial must be included. Important.

Many editors cite BLP, and even WP:PUBLIFIGURE, as if it means that negative and/or unproven information should not be included. No, that's not the way it works. That would be censorship, and that would violate NPOV. Just treat the allegation(s) sensitively, and neutrally document what multiple RS say.

Issue raised here.

These refs are only used in the lead, and have been co-opted for conclusions in the future. That's wrong, as they can only be used for when they were said. They also need attribution and use in the body of the article.

As of February 2018, the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated.

References

1. Keneally, Meghan (2017-12-26). "Trump slams 'bogus' Russian dossier and says the FBI is 'tainted'". ABC News. Retrieved 2018-01-11. The dossier is uncorroborated but not disproved.
2. Prokop, Andrew (December 28, 2017). "What we learned about Trump, Russia, and collusion in 2017". Vox. Retrieved February 11, 2018. Yet as 2017 winds down, there is still no clear answer to the central question at the heart of the probe: Did Trump's team collude with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign?...here are the darker possibilities of the sort alleged in the salacious and mostly uncorroborated Steele dossier.

A comment in a "merge" RfC deserves some response, but obviously not in the RfC, since it's off-topic (it's not an AfD):

• WP:POV - this lacks WP:BALANCE, in sources used and in lack of the significant coverage on widespread handling as a 'dodgy' item and of right-wing crowing over items discredited, plus it's nature of the bulk being one-sided allegations with occasional flawed wording for what is presented. (Really this article should either be tagged on concerns or moved to draft space for work.) For example, in sources I'll note that there is Mother Jones and Vanity Fair and Buzzfeed ... but nothing from the much-larger/prominent FoxNews.

I'll likely respond in a separate section when I have more time.

I have always been upfront about the creation process for the article, and have explained how and why I chose the 42 (originally many more) RS used.

The references exist to document the existence and wording of the allegations. Period. They are not chosen for their POV on the subject. Some were originally chosen because they "also" had interesting commentary, but those comments are now moved to the main article. Any RS can be used to document the "existence" of an allegation, and since some of these allegations are serious (one is "salacious"), BLP's "WP:PUBLICFIGURE" applies, so they must be documented by multiple RS.  Done

If I had chosen to only use the dossier itself, IOW to perform OR, I could have listed far more allegations, but I followed our policies and only listed those allegations which had received attention in multiple RS. That's what we are supposed to do.

Since the objection mentions FoxNews as a source, I could also do that. Although their strong GOP bias renders them mostly unusable for accuracy (too much spin and outright proven lies) on the subject of the dossier (for commentary they might still have their place, since bias is not alone a reason to exclude a source), they might still be usable for documenting the existence of some allegations. I'm sure they have done that, but not nearly as much as most other sources, because that would be against their mission, which is to deny and deflect. They don't want their viewers to know that some of the allegations exist. Anything negative about the GOP or Trump is generally buried or ignored.

Since the objector thinks the lack of FoxNews refs is a problem, I'll start searching for them. Then I may respond on the talk page. Help in finding those FoxNews sources would be appreciated.

Drive-by criticism, especially non-specific, on talk pages, RfCs, and AfDs is unhelpful. People who just criticize, without constructively contributing on talk pages and actually trying to improve articles, are a dime-a-dozen here, and they are disruptive editors. For the purposes of that article they are WP:NOTHERE, and sometimes topic bans should be used to stop their drive-by disruptions. If they don't have something constructive to say or do, then they should stay away. Disagreement can be constructive, but it's often too general to be anything other than irritating bitching. Constructive criticism is different and welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

FoxNews is used four times in the main article, twice for commentary. None of them document allegations:

BullRangifer (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

References

1. "Putin: Those who leaked Trump dossier 'worse than prostitutes'". Fox News. January 17, 2017. Retrieved January 17, 2017.
2. "'Garbage Document': Woodward Says US Intel Should Apologize Over Trump Dossier". Fox News. January 16, 2017. (Open the "Read full article" link)
3. "House panel releases Glenn Simpson testimony transcript". Fox News. 18 January 2018.
4. Singman, Brooke (2018-01-18). "House Intelligence Committee votes to release transcript of interview with Fusion GPS boss". Fox News. Retrieved 2018-01-19.

Some interesting, and also misleading, comments (my emphasis)....

From this version of the page

Adding - take a look at Trump–Russia_dossier#Reactions to specific allegations - more proof that as long as the primary was published by secondary sources, we can use a summary of key points RS used. The dossier probably includes blatant SYNTH to gather the commentary...I haven't checked it. No deadline. Ironic how the article is about Trump's views but we can't use his views? Ha!

Atsme 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

From this interesting and correct comment on JFG's page

If you're concerned about OR...

...there is an entire article that was built on the same premise for what some are now claiming is OR regarding your proposal. Selecting a relevant quote that was published in a secondary source is indeed acceptable and compliant with our PAGs. WP:OR clearly states: sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. It is not OR, it is NPOV as it will be in-text attribution...and it was published in a secondary source. There is absolutely no valid reason it can't be used...

Atsme 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

From this version of the page

MrX, this entire article is cherrypicked to fit a particular POV which is why so many editors have challenged it. To now say inclusion of Trump's own views on racism is not allowed because it is "cherrypicked" is a bit of a stretch. A statement that is used for its relevancy is not cherrypicked. There is no PAG that supports what you're saying. That's what we do - we use editorial judgment to determine what is relevant/encyclopedic for inclusion in an article and for you to say a relevant statement in a US president's inaugural speech is cherrypicking is well...absurd.

Atsme 23:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

From this version of the page.

This is simply false, and it's even worse because this has been debunked repeatedly and the creation process and reasoning explained in detail. The irony is that above she describes and approves of the very process used.

There is no evidence of any SYNTH violation or that there were any "cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative". SMH. The allegations are what they are, and the only ones used were those which were commented on in RS, never any OR or POV choosing. The RS dictated which ones to pick. Their POV is what it is. I have no choice or influence on that.

Sorry - the dissecting was done by EuroNews which published "Key quotes from Donald Trump's inauguration speech" and did some extraction from Donald Trump’s first speech as US president. We certainly can use parts of what they published as a secondary source that fits into the context of this narrative. You might want to take a look at List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations and Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations, which was published in its entirety in an unreliable source (BuzzFeed), and then with the use of SYNTH a separate list and a section in the main article were created using cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative. What was proposed here is not SYNTH, it is editorial judgment that cites a RS and a relevant statement in the speech demonstrating Trump's views on race...and you are now trying to convince editors that doing so is noncompliant with policy? I suggest you cite the policy that supports your position because I say it does not. Trump's views belong in an article about Trump's views.

Atsme 00:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Saving here:

In response to a discussion about the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), specifically about what became this heading (Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation), Legacypac wrote: "It's all a coordinated effort."

How true, and much more than we at first realized. This "coordinated effort" goes way back, with witting and unwitting players working together.

The Trump–Russia dossier ties this continuing and coordinated effort back to cooperation established at least eight years before Trump's election, and then alleges the current existence of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin." It furthermore alleges that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between and the Russian leadership" to defeat "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON", and that there was a "Kremlin campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON".

The proof of that collaboration is abundant. Nearly every member of the Trump administration was in repeated contacts with Russians, and repeatedly lied about it. Not only that, they were caught in electronic surveillance talking about it.

The micro-targeted election campaign involved a very closely coordinated teamwork involving Jared Kushner, Cambridge Analytica, Facebook's and Twitter's marketing departments, Russian hackers, and WikiLeaks (IOW Russian intelligence), all exploiting a well-developed GOP voter suppression machine which had a track record for successfully guaranteeing Republican victories, even when there were Democratic majorities. The system was nearly foolproof. Respect for democracy was totally gone. The successful election is the fruition of their efforts, and proof of the danger this cooperation poses to democracy and American freedoms. Fortunately they got busted. Now that corrupt system needs to be broken down.

Paul Wood, a subject expert, has plainly described this coordinated effort:

"This is a three-headed operation,” said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: First, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated “bots”, then on Russia’s English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US “news” sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.

The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of “microtargeting”. Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.

“You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic,” said the former official, “you know where to target that stuff when you’re pushing it back.”

This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.

The Putin/Trump/GOP/FoxNews/Breitbart/InfoWars/RT/Sputnik coordination/conduit is very active. Note how the ends meet, and how the fake news was directed at InfoWars and Breitbart, and then trickled up, but very little being spread by MSM. Serious news outlets usually reject fake news, but the fringe right-wing (and to a lesser degree the fringe left-wing) has been very open to spreading it.

Starting at the extreme fringes, conspiracy theory websites love this stuff. They have no crap filters and believe anything fed to them by Russians, as long as it supports their pro-Trump, anti-Clinton, agenda. InfoWars, WND (birther central), The Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge are unreliable sources which fall in this class.

Moving a tiny bit closer to center, Breitbart News, with its support of James O'Keefe, has actively supported and spread deceptively edited videos which are very misleading, and they have been busted and debunked.

Trump is friends with Breitbart's Steve Bannon, InfoWars's Alex Jones, and Fox News's Roger Ailes, and he believes their propaganda. He has no crap filters, and yet he's president. The Russian government has a clear line/conduit of misinformation feeding directly to the president, and it informs his tweets and policies.

The top GOP leadership are all corrupted and compromised, because they KNEW (especially the Gang of Eight members) that Russia was interfering in the election and helping the Trump team, but McConnell and Ryan ordered them all to stay quiet, in spite of the active threat. For them, it was more important to get Trump elected than to protect America. They also accepted illegal Russian money for their campaigns, so they are compromised in that way too.

Note that some players may be somewhat unwitting, in that they think they are patriots "fighting the good fight" to protect America from an evil (non-existent) "deep state", not realizing they are parroting Putin and serving nefarious Russian interests.

This latest phase of collaboration started with the successful attempt, using Russian help, to get Trump elected. According to what Russians have publicly stated, he started to (secretly) plan the election with Russians back in 2013, and they have bragged, on TV, about helping him and about how the Russians elected the American president. In that process a lot MORE kompromat was created, because collusion/conspiracy/secrecy always creates kompromat. It's being used to pressure Trump, IOW a successfully activated blackmail threat, but he willingly plays along because he has no loyalties but to himself. He wanted to win, and wanted this help. With or without kompromat he would have done it.

Now that the plot is being uncovered and investigated, the operation has shifted into a defensive obstruction and cover-up effort. They are now fighting for survival and to stay out of jail, and some are already confessing and cutting plea deals. Exciting times!

So is the new heading ("Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation") accurate? Yes, but still pretty mild. With time we will be able to write "Attempts to obstruct justice" and an article entitled "Trump-Russia cover-up operation".

OK, a few thoughts on the article. You have done a really good job; the introductory paragraphs in particular are well done. The only suggestion I would make in the section headings is to eliminate the separate section “Activated blackmail threat against Trump” and combine it into the preceding section “Kompromat on Trump”. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I can do that. I kept it separate because it's so significantly different than just "blackmailable" actions. It's a clear statement that the threat has been activated, but, on condition of continued cooperation, it's being held back. That's classic active blackmail. There is nothing passive about it. The axe is literally being held over his head....allegedly.... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done MelanieN, I also chose to combine two overlapping allegations which were intimately connected, and I added more RS coverage. RS have mentioned these two allegations together, so I have done the same. RS quote both of them and both mention blackmail, so I have literally taken the quotes and used them exactly as used by RS, and as found in the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

So where do we stand on the discussion about merging it into the dossier article vs. keeping it separate? That discussion has pretty much died down; it was started 12 days ago and the last comment was four days ago. It is strongly leaning toward merge - most people seemed to think it would be more useful in the main article than in a separate article - but it is not in “snow” territory. I guess it doesn’t hurt anything to wait for more possible input. I’m not going to close it since I participated in the survey. And of course you shouldn’t either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's actually 16 days ago, and the situation is stale. A snow close isn't necessary, but the consensus is pretty clear. It was also announced on the main article talk page, so I doubt we'll see any significant change. Take a look here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If you need any help, BR, let me know.. Thank you for your hard work, dedication and for being a good collaborator! 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)