Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:53, 5 November 2023

November 2023

You don't get to treat other editors that way on talkpages. You've been around long enough to know that. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So it's OK to lie? Got it. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The lie

Allegedly our sources at 2023 Lewiston shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) don't discuss the victims, and yet, in just half an hour of going through the first 8 sources in use this revision, only 13% of the checked sources (that's 1 out of 8) didn't name any victims, and 25% (that's 2 out of 8) didn't name them all. The other 6 sources (75%) name them all, often in multiple articles.

1. Source: https://apnews.com/article/lewiston-maine-shootings-49da6d06a8b5a15d3b619b3927bc33ff
   1. VS: https://apnews.com/article/maine-shooting-victims-1be7d14e90ef6c91ca23819163d29f3e
2. Source: https://www.sunjournal.com/2023/10/25/multiple-victims-reported-following-shootings-in-lewiston/
   1. VS: https://www.sunjournal.com/2023/10/26/lives-lost-in-lewiston-theres-nothing-he-wouldnt-do-for-anybody/
   2. VS: https://www.sunjournal.com/lewiston-mass-killing/ - top of page highlights victims on their landing page for the mass shooting event, also contains links to full obituaries right at the top
3. Source: https://themessenger.com/news/maine-mass-shooting-ruger-sfar-308-battle-rifle
   1. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/lewiston-maine-mass-shooting-victims-18-killed
   2. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/lewiston-mass-shooting-victim-keith-macneir-visiting-maine-celebrate-birthday
   3. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/lewiston-mass-shooting-maine-mechanic-bob-violette-dead
   4. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/beloved-asl-interpreter-helped-deaf-maine-pandemic-lewiston-mass-shooting-victims-joshua-seal
   5. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/father-son-maine-shooting-victims-lewiston-bowling-alley-young
4. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-shooting-timeline-maine-attack-rcna122290
   1. VS: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/lewiston-maine-massacre-manhunt-suspect-rcna122436#rcrd23551
   2. VS: https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/remembering-those-killed-in-the-lewiston-maine-mass-shooting-196584005652 - not only were they also presented in text, the nationally aired nightly news which is also re-broadcast on YouTube and other platforms, included a segment on the victims
5. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/maine-shooting-idAFKBN31S064
   1. VS: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-shooting-victims-pipefitter-who-loved-wrestling-father-son-bowling-league-2023-10-27/ - full list with additional bio details
   2. VS: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-shooting-victims-father-son-out-bowling-night-bar-employee-2023-10-26/ - partial list prior to the full list being released by officials
6. Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/26/at-least-16-killed-dozens-injured-in-mass-shooting-in-us-state-of-maine
   1. VS: None found
7. Source: https://france24.com/en/live-news/20231027-maine-city-deserted-as-residents-hole-up-during-hunt-for-killer
   1. VS: https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20231027-manhunt-for-maine-mass-shooter-extends-to-second-night - partial victim list
8. Source: https://www.wmtw.com/article/where-robert-card-lewiston-maine-gunman-body-was-found/45672278
   1. VS: https://www.wmtw.com/article/victims-lewiston-maine-mass-shootings/45656677
   2. VS: https://www.wmtw.com/article/lewiston-mass-shooting-remembering-victims-stories/45657528

I sure hope pointing out lies doesn't result in blocks all the time around here, or we'll never have anyone telling the truth. I was going to go through as many sources as I could before bed, but apparently since I won't be participating for three days, it probably won't matter. Fuck you very much @Acroterion:. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would use the methodology you present above, it's rather confounding. Of the enumerated sources you list above (all which come from the article), zero list the victims. So you gather articles from the same publisher that do list victims to make your point? How is that supposed to be convincing?

I guess it's probably not worth trying to understand, as, based on your comments, it sure doesn't appear like you have the intentions of editing in good faith. Crescent77 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, a news "source" is a news outlet, not a news article. All these sources (and more) have given us articles about the dead or mentioned them in broader articles about the shooting. This is definitely worth understanding and Locke probably should have been allowed to tell you himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that's inaccurate, it's not that simple. Please read WP:Verifiability :

"...the word source has four related meanings:

• The work itself (the article, book: "That book looks like a useful source for this article.") and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for..").
• The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical facts").
• The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works")."

He would have been allowed to tell me himself, had he not gone out with a "Fuck you very much". Crescent77 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It is that simple, in a WP:RSN sense. The creator, the publisher, the publication. I agree one should never tell an admin anything like that. I was once blocked this hard for telling one to **** my ****. I was having a bad day, lashed out and was eventually let back in to apologize and move on. I hope the same happens here. And I hope Cole means it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The creator, the publisher, the publication, AND the work itself. Crescent77 (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in this context, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not how I used the term. Crescent77 (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I know. That's how he used it. Hence the misunderstanding about whether the underlying "lie" is a lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. Does he? We're only guessing at this point, as he let his anger get the best of him before we could find out. Crescent77 (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If he's reading this, he understands now. It's not complicated and he's not dumb. Anyway, I think we can all agree that using the precise words we mean going forward (such as "outlets/publications" and "articles/works") could help make this world a marginally less infuriating place. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

 Galobtter (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)