Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:07, 24 October 2016

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome! If you post here, I'll reply here; no point in scattering a conversation across two pages. I may ping you when I reply, or not, depending on how much I want to be sure you see my reply. If you want to be sure you see a reply, please add this page to your watchlist or just remember to check back later. I don't use Talkback.(Dontcha wish we could agree on one way to do this, and eliminate all the unnecessary confusion? I do.)

There is one place at Misplaced Pages where I get to dictate a mature and respectful tone of conversation. This is it. Off limits to people who won't or can't converse like adults.

Donald Trump

So show me where the sources says he makes false claims? It is not just applicable to him and is a smear statement.  — Calvin999 08:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999: The problem is that you are missing all the context around that sentence. There recently has been a very large amount of discussion among editors about it on the article's talk page, and the current sentence represents the current consensus. In controversial articles like this one, it's best not to jump in and make controversial edits without first understanding the context. Many editors make the same kind of mistake by removing the words "black" and "white" from the leads of articles that have racial components established by reliable sources. One of the discussions about his statements is at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Donald_Trump.27s_false_campaign_statements, and there are probably more. You're free to open a new discussion challenging the existing consensus, but I think it would be a waste of your time and probably somewhat painful for you. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I read the whole sentence, I understand the context and I agree that everything up until "and false" should be included. It's an ambiguous term that is baseless, and by the same rule of thumb should be included in all political article, but I doubt it would be.  — Calvin999 09:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I don't have an opinion on that question, and I have stayed out of the discussions related to it. I do know that we don't make consensus-free edits of content that has recently been hotly debated and is therefore known to be very controversial among editors. Actually the latest discussion about it was started just yesterday and is in progress, why not join it? That's at Talk:Donald_Trump#Quick_straw_poll_.28false_statements.29. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I might do. Thanks.  — Calvin999 09:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Good clean up on the article. Mentioning it here because I ran out of 'thanks.' Didn't know they had a limit. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Hi,

I've found some sources that I've posted at my sandbox. For the moment, I'll make some edits to reduce some of the content. I think it would be interesting to add a bit from the Washington Post article, told from a guy's perspective with a sociological bent. I think all the derogatory comments should be removed - there's more salient points to make. And, there's another perspective from Judge Jeanine that may be good to introduce.

I just saw that you've made some edits, so I'll chime in reducing / eliminating text for the short run. Let me know, though, please if you have concerns or comments so we're on the same track.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I'm really not that good at that part of the editing business, so I'd prefer to leave it to your judgment. But while you're here, how do you feel about my first Comment in the proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean about "tangential content"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Yes. Actually it's my only bolded Comment in the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's fine. You removed something like that from the "Natasha Stoynoff" section that I had added. I get your point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Awesome. Could you say something to that effect following the Comment, then? I'm concerned some will view that as a significant modification after !voting, rather than a reasonable clarification of the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at the revised section, do you mind taking a look? I'm going to read the Harper article again, but it would be good to get your thoughts about where it's at.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Looks fine to my incompetent eye. There is nothing tabloid, which was my main concern. You're at four sentences, which still leaves us one sentence of breathing room per the proposal. That's where my competence ends. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I was just going to the talk page to see how to talk about what to do with the new development when I realized on my last save that the source was Hollywood Reporter. I should have stopped and posted on the Talk page first. I didn't see you break in so I just kept on rolling... I let you down.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully, I have no idea what you're referring to, so I can't feel let down. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I was in the midst of posting:

I have reverted the edits, posted an explanation on the talk page, and would like to remove the template that you added. I am sorry, you did such a great job coordinating a decision. I hope you'll accept my apology, but I'll understand if you don't.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I considered that agreement voided by the new content, since it is completely encyclopedic. I see it as apples and oranges. That's why I collapsed that talk sectoin. I thought you were of the same mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Thanks for submitting the temp block request for Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations!

I'm cleaning up citations, and I see you are, too. I want to fill in some missing info and, as an FYI, I'll start at the bottom of the article and work my way up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, I don't think we'll get in each other's way. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Whenever vandalism is occurring with really high frequency (too high for it to be worth reporting at AIV and waiting) as occurred just then, you can ask for an admin via #wikipedia-en as I did. The response was really quick. That's not to say you should always do that (you shouldn't), but with high-frequency vandalism, it can be a good way of quickly halting vandal sprees. Dustin (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't have an IRC client, and I'm reluctant to install one just for that purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but while I have an IRC client, I have found that just clicking "connect" in the above link allows me to open IRC in Internet Explorer / Chrome without having to download any external applications. I don't know if that would work for you on your device, but it works for me. If you just don't want to bother, I understand. There's not really much more to say about it. Dustin (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I was clicking on the wrong link, duh. I've bookmarked the target of the link, now if I can just remember it when I need it two months from now. Thanks for the tip. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. Dustin (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Is my "exclude" clearer now?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: - LOL. Not really, but I'm not the one who has to understand it. I'm of the opinion that, given a binary choice like this, one should !vote one way or other and not complicate things. If I dislike both options, I !vote for the one I dislike the least. I can't imagine how a closer can ever discern any kind of consensus when everybody has their own personal tweak or modification to the proposal. It would drive me to drink to try. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to vote one way or the other. Wasn't the proposal to include a separate dedicated paragraph about this subject in the lead? I oppose that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Well I consider it a faux pas to essentially say, "I know where you live," especially to a woman, even if it's only "I have narrowed down where you live to three states." Many editors value their anonymity and privacy. Clearly you have no problem telling everybody your name, if that's your name, but that's relatively uncommon at Misplaced Pages. It could be that my imagined experience with you had something to do with my forming that view. But I avoid comments about anything that might encroach on privacy.
I agree, this is fun. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

{ping|CaroleHenson}} Much of this page just disappeared, no explanation in history. A new experience. I think I need an Adopt-a-user mentor to explain this to me. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: ―Mandruss ☎ 08:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get the pings that you sent to me. I think it's better to talk on the other page. Did you get my pings?--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump RfC

Because you commented in the straw poll !vote, I invite you to comment on the new RfC on Talk:Donald Trump. I apologize for any inconvenience in "re-voting". Your past input is appreciated. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Diversity of sources

Hi Mandruss. I just want to mention that I'm very leery of discarding reliable sources for not being the best of the best. It sounds nice at first, but actually it reduces the diversity of what we provide to readers. Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis added).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I don't think they mean different views as to whether that lawsuit is newsworthy. But actually, we could use the blue chips to decide whether it passes DUE and EXCEPTIONAL and, if yes, I wouldn't have a problem with including some other reliable sources for the content.
I just think the only halfway objective way to judge DUE is 1. "what percent of the whole has reported it"? and 2. "what percent is enough?" If you include the less-than-blue-chips, you have to enlarge the "whole" accrodingly to include all sources at that level of RS that chose not to report. Your new percentage might well be below the current 16.6. As well as being very difficult and time-consuming to decide who should be included in that tier, as well as probably making the number too large to manage anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC

Jane Doe

I am confused about your last two points about Jane Doe. Did you change your mind since you said there is widespread coverage and it should stay? I may be missing something, but its sounded contradictory to another recent post.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I did a complete reversal when that other user showed that 16.6% of the "blue chips" I had previously listed have reported this. That 16.6% does not come close to justifying content about accusations of repeated rape of a 13-year-old girl. I demonstrated that my mind is always completely open, that my position is determined by the arguments, rather than clinging to my position at whatever cost to prove that I was right when the debate started. See my mini-essay, User:Mandruss#Changing your mind, changing your !vote. I live by that, among other things. So please don't be surprised or confused when you see me appear to reverse my position. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course that's fine. It is absolutely ok to disagree and I try to remain open. You may want to post something to that affect, unless you did and I missed it, But surely we don't have to eliminate the section, we could say sexual misconduct and that there is a trial. I see what you are saying, but I don't agree with you. It seemed such a reversal that I wondered if it was you. There was just the Springer conversation that only had the Guardian and Daily Beast in what was a potential character assassination. It does sound like your written voice though.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time for me to take a break. I will check back later and see how it is shaking out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How about if we post a question on the talk page of the most applicable guideline - or maybe two talk pages? I asked the question on the DRama page but thought we might sort out which pages etc. If you think that makes sense.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Since WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV, maybe WP:NPOVN. Otherwise I'd be clueless. But I notice a strong tendency among very experienced editors to oppose something because it's a new approach, not so much because it's a bad approach. If it's new, they seem to go out of their way to find reasons to say it's a bad one. One of many things that have nurtured my sense of resignation as to editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Yes!

I have debated giving up on the article - maybe "Thankfulness" was posted too soon. I'm definitely going to be working on a few other things that have been in my queue.

Thanks for the noticeboard input! That's where the people on the Help Chat line told me to go for there for that issue + the recent additions about Trump and his lawyer commented about the unattractiveness of the accusers. I'll take the Jane Doe issue there and wait to see if anyone comments in the talk page sections about the recent additions.

I don't know if you noticed, but based on the conversation and the analysis - I went ahead and made some edits to the article to soften the story, while it gets worked out. I left "rape" in her section, til we get it worked out based on two other votes to Keep and to Keep but reduce.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for my contribution to your frustration. If you think it's better if I drop out of this page entirely, I am cool with that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't quite reached that point. At least we haven't descended into the usual juvenile petty bickering there. You have never contributed a whit to my frustration. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Traction - Jane Doe on NPOVN

I think we're stuck on the number of sources / multiple criteria issue - I agree that in the case the percentage of sources that reported/didn't report is relevant - but it also seems we're swirling around it. I am just trying to figure how how to move this forward. Do you have a suggestion to help us come to a resolution? Find people who have addressed and sought resolution on the previous X number of NPOV conversations and ask for their input? Do we need to allow more time for others who watch this page to comment? Something else?

I truly don't care if my suggestion is ignored, I just feel like we're swirling and not making progress from the article talk page discussion. I had thought that perhaps by limiting the sources to those that reported on the Doe case and not the long list of accusers might be a way to look at it. That's all.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - In my experience the only way to break such an impasse is RfC. That is not to say that it necessarily produces a good result, but it at least lets us move on. (I would hope that the result of a "no clear consensus" RfC would be no content at all, especially under these circumstances.) As I've said previously, the problem with RfC is getting a close early enough to have any significant effect on the election, and this will become far less important (although not unimportant) after the election. In summary, no very good answer to your question, which is not unusual at Misplaced Pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

How about we see where this goes in the next 12 hours and then try something you mentioned earlier - Village Pump? Or, bring it to RfC and mention the timeliness issue for quicker resolution? If either of those seem viable, I'll post something back on the article talk page - or feel free if you'd like.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - The latter is not a bad idea. We would need to spend some time carefully formulating the RfC question, or it will be a waste of time. I think you and I could handle that in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, do we start with the post made to NPOVN? Or, start from scratch mentioning the talk page discussion and NPOVN attempt?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

{ping|CaroleHenson}} Neither, exactly. Simply state the concise and neutral question, follow it by more information about the situation, and finish with links to the various precursor discussions, which no one will have the time to read. The RfC itself wouldn't say anything about my argument, that would be confined to my !vote and people can agree or disagree with it. I'm pretty good at formatting RfCs, so I could do the actual edit to create it, but I still need your input on how to frame the question. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Retry botched ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - We can build the RfC in one of my sandboxes, polishing it to a high luster. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Start of draft:

There is an ongoing dispute at the article's talk page and more recently at the NPOV noticeboard about whether to include content about a claim by a woman, called "Jane Doe", who says that at the age of 13 she was raped by Donald Trump on multiple occasions. In October 2016, she filed her third civil lawsuit in New York to litigate the case.

The dispute is centered this being an unusual situation - a claim of rape during a presidential campaign - that does have reliable sources that have reported the allegation, but it is not widely reported. There are also a few articles that claim that the plaintiff is making these claims unjustly. One article came out in June from The Guardian and another was released on October 21 stating that the reason it has not been picked up is that there are serious concerns about the validity of the claim.

One one side, there are people that believe that since she is covered by the mainstream media as an accuser, there should be a section in the article that speaks to that claim. That section includes the questions about the claim and comments from Trump and his attorney.

And there are others that believe that due to the questions about the claim and that it had not received widespread coverage by the mainstream media, it should not be included in the article's content.

There's a start.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, want to move it wherever you'd like?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: See User:Mandruss/sandbox5. I created a talk page there and we can continue this there. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am totally lost! How about if I let you continue for awhile and then when it's clearer to me where I can step in, I'll do that then.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the RfC is ready to receive votes on the DTSMA page. Where do the votes go - under vote options? at the bottom of the section under JD content discussion? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I worked out an approach to add a subsection for the votes and cast my vote - please feel free to move it, etc. as necessary. I also created an RfC section on the NPOVN page so that it doesn't get lost in all the discussion. There was a posting - about neutrality after your posting about the RfC - that looked like it was a response to your RfC.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss, thanks

Hi Mandruss, hope all is well! Thanks for coming to my defense; that is truly appreciated. I hope you think the Davis article is doing well; the Germanwings Flight article too. Hey I may be up for Administrator later next month; if you feel like it, keep an eye on the RfA page then. All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 16:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I hate that imperious tone and see red every time I see it. Especially if they're wrong. I can't help it. Haven't looked at Davis or Germanwings in ages, that's so 2015. ;) I've never visited an RfA and I don't know what I would contribute to yours, beyond "He seems like an ok guy to me, don't know of any reason to oppose." lol. Is that what they want in an RfA? Non-opposes? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Soham321 (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)