Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PackMecEng (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 19 October 2018 (→Misrepresenting source?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

My apologies

My apologies, not trying to do anything other than be civil and do research.

Can you do the same?

Can you please use MDY dates?

Can you please allow me some time to do research?

Please?

Sagecandor (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: All I ask is that you stop edit warring. The rest of those are content issues that belong on the article talk page, not here. Also are you accusing me of not being civil? For those interested this is in relation to this. PackMecEng (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm just asking us to commit to the same thing. Sound good? And to commit and re-commit to increased civility going forwards. And to both trying to improve Misplaced Pages. Okay? Sagecandor (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Uh-huh, just follow my lead and we can get that article into shape if it kills us! PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Or not, I am supremely disappointed in you. PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Dang -- I knew from the first few times I encountered Sagecandor that the account was a sock, just couldn't figure out who it really was. And I sure never expected to find out it to belong to that particular editor. Wow. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I was not around when Cirt was most active it seems, looks like a lot of drama from then. I am rather surprised their account has not been blocked for violating the topic-banned, it looks fairly straight forward for enforcement. PackMecEng (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

ANI thread

Yes, that's the ANI thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Kind of thought so, you should really have that in your AFD if you are using it as something to consider deletion with. It could also be helpful to mention examples of OR and BLP vios you mention. PackMecEng (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? I'm not sure if I'm missing something, or you are. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: In your AFD you mention an ANI thread as a basis for deletion. You should point people to where that thread is. Next you vaguely state it is a mix of OR and BLP violations without any specifics, violations like that are easily corrected. So give clarity on why deletion is needed. Do you understand what I was saying now? PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I know what I'm doing; it's definitely not standard operating procedure but hopefully the BLP issues (which justify striking the entire article history to date) will be resolved. A sea of acronyms won't help you in unsteady tides. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Ha, I sure hope you do. PackMecEng (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow!

Really? Asking why Donald Trump's (Yes, the *removed BLP vio*) wiki article is edit protected is considered "vandalizing"? Rightttttt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.173.53 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@167.57.173.53: That is a WP:BLP violation to call them that. PackMecEng (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a BLP-vio if you're at the DT article talk page. Then, according to some, it's perfectly acceptable behavior and if you try to redact it, you get reverted and many will swoop down to agree with the reversion. Or so I've been told. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Ah the WP:NOTCENSORED and Truth™ group! Yeah it can be tricky in that case lol PackMecEng (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. In the case of that group, NOTCENSORED is selective. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what one thinks of Trump, you can't just write something like that. It's a clear BLP violation. If a RS says it, then, done properly, it might be appropriate, but otherwise "no". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Fair enough, and I appreciate the sentiment, but I have a hard time thinking of a situation where calling any BLP a "fascist warmonger" appropriate hehe. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If it's an accusation or allegation made by RS, especially multiple RS, then WP:PUBLICFIGURE tells us how to deal with it; we must include it, but do it properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: That is what I am getting at, wording exactly like that would be unacceptable. Also RS using wording like that would be immediately suspect if they are RS in that situation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, if it were some frivolous remark (not talking about the remark above, but generally), but if it were a serious allegation, then we are required to document the reliable sources, and PUBLICFIGURE tells us how. We are uncensored and do not engage in neutering content. We do not spare the feelings of subjects in such situations. We follow policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Of course if a serious accusation covered by many solid RS then we would cover that. In a way that complies with policy and not in a sensational or non-encyclopedic way like that.

I have always been dubious of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, a lot of people seem to think it is a MUST cover every allegation type deal. Which it most certainly is not, people always forget the noteworthy and relevant part. PackMecEng (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I note that both the UTP warning and the block are for vandalism, further establishing the V-word as a somewhat meaningless catch-all blunt instrument (I wonder why AIV is misused so much?). The IP's intent was not to damage the encyclopedia but to use the encyclopedia to slam Trump. If it's a BLP vio, call it a BLP vio. I'm sorry to see this, from both the warning experienced-editor and the blocking admin. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Though something like what was posted was clearly deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Also it was noted on the AIV post here the BLP issues related to the user conduct. PackMecEng (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. I think you're confusing intent and effect. Vandalism is about intent. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You mentioned it above, they intended use the encyclopedia to bash someone. That is certainly against the project's purpose and they certainly intended to do that. It was also noted on AIV and when I replied to them on this talk page about the BLP issues. It could also be argued they were WP:NOTHERE. So I am not sure the issue, you just do not like it being called vandalism? PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt the IP thought they were doing good for the encyclopedia, and being completely wrong about that doesn't make it vandalism. you just do not like it being called vandalism? Correct. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Fair enough, I will use a different template in the future if you like. PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

	Little Badger
	For your work on Chiappa Little Badger. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: Ha, thank you! I saw your post on Project Firearms and figured I would give it a try. PackMecEng (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresenting source?

I was looking into the little edit war you and Snooganssnoogans were involved in on the Laura Ingraham page. Snooganssnoogans was saying that the source described Ingraham as being "anti-immigration" while you said it described her as being "anti-illegal immigration". I took the liberty of opening the source myself and doing a Ctrl-F for "immigration". I got 3 hits in 2 paragraphs, and all of them seem to best support Snooganssnoogans's position. Is there something else in that source that I missed that characterizes her as being "anti-illegal immigration" and not just "anti-immigration"? ~Awilley (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Well the parts from the story I took as supporting illegal was mainstream media story about an immigrant as an "illegal immigration sob story." and such as calling the children of immigrants in the country illegally. You should also take note on the talk page that I requested a stronger source for it and if that was given I would be fine with the original wording. Mostly because the Washington Post article was from their style/opinion section. Great, lets get a good source for that past commentary and add it. Otherwise the source used is not good enough. All good? PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not all good. Your partial quotes of the source aren't fooling me, as I just finished reading them in the context of the full sentences. ~Awilley (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I'm sorry, fooling you? As you know those are the sections of the story that are purporting what Ingraham said about their own views. Which are in conflict with the authors opinions, again why I stated getting a more RS source on the subject for making that statement. Do you see an issue with using that opinion source for statements of fact about a BLP? PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you mind if this debate was continued on the article talk page? The source being discussed here makes no mention of Ingraham's views on legal immigration. Other sources do. This argument is not helpful. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: Thanks, I would prefer that, but Awilley is not here to talk content issues. PackMecEng (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Frayae, this discussion isn't about Ingraham's views, it's about whether PackMecEng deliberately misrepresented a source.

@PackMecEng, Are you saying that the Washington Post article is an Opinion piece? ~Awilley (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: It is part of their Style section, if you click the link in the article it takes you here. Which they describe as Art, culture, and commentary from Style writers, commentary from Style writers sounds like opinion to me. At best it could be labeled as WP:RSOPINION, but again do you feel that would be a strong enough source for a statement of fact about a BLP? PackMecEng (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a subscriber of the Washington Post, but from what I can tell, their arts/culture/entertainment/style content is separate from their "opinions" columns. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions). Since it's a regular article from a regular Washington Post editor that is specifically about Laura Ingraham, I would say that it qualifies as a secondary reliable source about Ingraham. It's certainly not the best, but it is better than an opinion source (for which would need to have a good reason to use it, and would have to attribute the opinion to its author). But I think we've departed from the original problem: whether you deliberately misrepresented the source. To get to the bottom of that, let me take a different approach. I will list 4 statements of fact, as I see them, and you tell me which ones you agree or disagree with.

1. The source calls Ingraham "an early proponent of Trumpism — an anti-immigration, tax-slashing America Firster" without qualifying it as being just anti-illegal immigration.
2. The source says that to drive home her restrictive views of immigration Ingraham will reframe stories about immigrants as "illegal immigration sob stories".
3. You claimed that the source only supports her being opposed to illegal immigration and not immigration in general, and reverted twice on that basis with the edit summaries "restoring to match source and stated views" and "Did you read the source? It frames all her actions though opposing illegal immigration".
4. On the talk page you doubled down saying that the source "talks about all of it in context of illegal immigration. Explaining her views, what she has said on it, and what she has done. All while explicitly in context of illegal immigration. How you get anything else is beyond me."

Did I get these facts correct? ~Awilley (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: 1 - Yes the source states that opinion, as well as the others I mentioned. 2 - Yup sources says that as you are quoting it, which is depicting their thoughts on what Ingraham things. Which is targeted at illegal immigrants. 3 - I never said only and my actions on the talk page reflect that as you know. So yes I disagree with your assertion that I was saying the "source only supports". 4 - As I explained here with examples from the article yes it does frame her views as illegal immigration in that article, with the authors giving disagreeing. On the source being an opinion we can agree to disagree, though it sounds like we agree that it is not the best source. Others on the talk page have mentioned the source issue now as well, with it being updated. PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding your responses to 3 and 4. On 3, when you say "I never said only" are you saying that the source says that she opposes both illegal immigration and immigration in general? On 4, what do you mean by "with the authors giving disagreeing."? On the source being "an opinion", that's just sloppy terminology as it implies opinion piece (which as far as I can tell it is not). ~Awilley (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: On 3 no I am not saying that, I said the source listed both instances. On 4 that was a typo, it should of been more a long the lines of "with the author explaining why they might disagree". I said above it would be at best listed as WP:RSOPINION which is the proper policy definition of the source if they are an opinion by a RS. Again I disagree with your assertion there and as you said above it sounds like we are departing from your problem. So we have established my views on the article, why I said what I said in the edit summaries and article talk page, and the issues I had with the source. Do you feel there is more here? PackMecEng (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we are speaking different dialects here. The first paragraph of WP:RSOPINION is specifically about opinion pieces. It's even wikilinked there. It seems like you are trying to call the WaPo article an opinion piece without calling it an opinion piece. On 3, that didn't clear anything up for me. Please elaborate and be specific. The source listed both instances of what? Are you saying that the source says she opposes immigration or not? Ditto on 4. What did the author explain that they might disagree with? Perhaps you could rewrite 3 as a statement of fact that you agree with. Does removing the word "only" do it for you? ~Awilley (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Let go of the opinion piece issue. You linked the wiki article, I linked the policy on them. The policy is all that matters, period. With 3, the source lists both instances of illegal immigration and immigration in general. I said the source presents both arguments, the authors personal views and the subjects views. On 4, if the subject keeps explaining in context of illegal immigration and the author is disagreeing saying it is all immigration, the subject might disagree on that. But that is all over analyzing source and not our place. Now do you understand? My good faith is starting to wane with the goal post moving and continued accusations of bath faith here. PackMecEng (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Look. It is important that encyclopedia editors be able to agree on the meaning of words. Any reader examining the WaPo article can see that it clearly supports the statement that Ingraham is "anti-immigration" (which I'll grant is a superset of "anti-illegal immigration"). I personally don't know if she is actually anti-immigration or not, and to be honest I don't much care. But I can see what the source says. I can also see that you misrepresented that source in the content of your reverts, in your edit summaries, and on the article talk page. I do not know if that misrepresentation was intentional. I assumed that you had simply mis-read the source...that your eyes read "immigration" and your brain understood "illegal immigration" because that's what it expected to see. It happens to everybody. In approaching you about it I expected you would say as much, at which point I'd have warned you about misrepresenting sources and walked away. I certainly did not expect the 4kB of dissembling, waffling, obfuscating, declining to give straight answers to straightforward questions, and retroactively saying that your actual concern was the quality of the source (a concern that you only brought up after the two reverts and the talkpage comment I linked above, and which was quickly made moot by the addition of a second source ).

In a collaborative editing environment that relies on trust and good faith, misrepresenting a source and then digging in when challenged on it is completely unacceptable, worse in my opinion than the violation of some bright-line edit restriction. I believe you're editing in good faith, but suspect there is something in your life (perhaps a political leaning, personal experience, or choice of media diet) that is tinting your vision and affecting your editing. For this reason I think it would be good for you to get some distance by taking a break from editing articles about politics and focusing your energy on editing about something else that interests you. I think a month or two would be reasonable. Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I will try and keep this brief and to the point then. I do not see a topic ban as necessary or reasonable (I will come to that later) to be honest. You disagree with me on my interpretation of the source, that is fine and why we had input from other editors to correct the situation. I had an issue with the content of the source which was expressed in the edit summaries and I had an issue with the quality of the source which I expressed on the talk page. It is the reason an addition source was suggested and I agreed with the idea there. So besides the personal attacks I had to take from Snoogan it turned out just fine with the content in place and with better sourcing. An improvement to the encyclopedia wouldn't you agree?

Now for the other side of this, suggesting my personal life and political leanings as a reason for a topic ban are beyond inappropriate as you well know. Let me tell you about myself and perhaps you will see some of the issues I have with our talk here. Most of this stuff that I have shared on wiki before so not much new here. When I was a little girl of 11 my family moved to the USA. At 18 my parents and siblings moved back to Korea and I stayed here with my grandmother. I for the most part after that spent the rest of my time in the USA, eventually becoming a full citizen. So English is not my first language and I do not much appreciate the comments about my English skills. Second telling a woman they are essentially to emotional to edit a subject, not a great move for reasons that do not need to be explained. Finally telling anyone who is not being disruptive and is working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia that they are to politically biased to edit (which still boggled my mind since I said and I am still fine with the content being there, just wanted better sourcing for a controversial BLP) is a problem as well. At this point should this be move to ANI or ARBCOM? Or should we just move on with our lives and pretend none of this happened? PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

1. I definitely apologize for the offense I caused related to your gender and language. I don't have a way of knowing people's gender or ethnicity here, and I do my best to treat everybody as gender neutrally as possible. I watchlisted your talkpage for the first time today, and I actually did check your userpage for a gender box but didn't see one.

2. I in no way meant that your personal life experiences or political leanings are sufficient basis for a topic ban. Quite the opposite. Everybody has life events and political leanings that color their vision. The problem would be letting that stuff significantly affect the way you edit. I said it before and I'll repeat it, I don't know you or your life. All I can judge is your edits, and that's where I see the problem.

3. Re: "You disagree with me on my interpretation of the source". That's not it at all. I clearly stated what the problem was.

4. I didn't say topic ban, although I'm perfectly comfortable going down that road. I suggested that you take a break from editing politics and focus on something else for a while. ~Awilley (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I appreciate the apology on the first two points. I hope it will help you be more appropriate in the future when judging other people you know nothing about on the internet. On point 3, it is a difference of opinion on a source. That is the long and short of it. On point 4, I have given you the options we can go down, it is up to you. I will not be taking a break for the reasons above, if you wish to push that issue it is ANI or ARBCOM. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Threatening ANI/ARBCOM is actually not going to be productive for you. That said, I am not fond of placing sanctions and the ideal outcome for me is when an editor recognizes what the problem is and remedies it on their own. I don't want you gone, I want you to become a better editor. I'm still willing to talk through this with you, but I am not willing to have extended meta discussions about the meaning of words (for instance the whole "opinion" discussion) or to have my own words deliberately misinterpreted (eg. "you are telling me that I'm too biased to edit"). I'm willing to hit the reset button on this, but only if you are willing to drop the pretense, make a real effort to understanding the problem, and give me honest straightforward answers to questions. Are you willing to do this? ~Awilley (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Those are not threats, apologies if it came off that way. Those are the next steps in resolving this dispute since it seems we are at an impasse here. I am trying to help you be a better admin, as you are trying to help me be a better editor. At this point you have not shown this to be anything past different interpretations of a source. The only way it is something else is if you are suggesting I had a different view because of malice or ignorance. Do you think there is really more to discuss here? PackMecEng (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Is that a "no" answer to the yes-or-no question I asked above? ~Awilley (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: My answer remains unchanged. I will not be taking a voluntary break from editing AP topics. For the reasons I have explained numerous times above. PackMecEng (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to take a voluntary break. I'm asking you to drop pretense, make a real effort to understand what the problem is, and give honest and straightforward answers to questions. You haven't said if you are willing to do that. So yes or no? ~Awilley (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I have not had a pretense for anything here. I understand what the problem is. I have given honest answers. What do you have issue understanding from above? PackMecEng (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will expect honest and straightforward answers from here on. Let's rewind a bit. I want to see if you understand what the problem is. I will ask one question at a time, and I hope you will give me one straight answer. OK? ~Awilley (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Ha, you know what, at this point knock yourself out. I can only laugh at this point looking at the wall above but sure lets give it a shot. PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Q1: Does the WaPo source support the statement that Ingraham is "anti-immigration"? (Take your time and re-read it carefully if you're not sure.) ~Awilley (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: It unambiguously supports anti-illegal immigration from the point of view of Ingraham and anti-immigration from the point of view of the author. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That was definitely not a straightforward answer to a simple yes or no question. (I wasn't asking about "illegal immigration", which is obviously included in "immigration".) Would you care to try again? ~Awilley (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: These are not yes or no questions without misrepresenting the source. So if the question is does the source only support anti-immigration, the obvious answer is no. If the question is does the source support both? The answer would be yes. PackMecEng (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha! The former would have been a silly question indeed. How can one be anti-immigration but pro-illegal immigration? Of course someone who is anti-immigration is also anti-illegal immigration. Let's move on.

Q2: What is wrong with these reverts? This is where you need to convince me that you fully understand what the problem is, so think carefully before answering. ~Awilley (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Quit with the patronising take your time and think stuff. Nothing, they express an issue with how the source frames the issue. The first one you link is matching Ingraham's stated views from the article. The second one I was using the example from the source talking about "illegal immigration sob story." PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You see absolutely nothing wrong with the edit summaries, even though you concede above that the source says she opposes both immigration and illegal immigration? ~Awilley (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Correct, the issue is the source presents both but the article cherry picked one view. Perhaps I could of been more clear on that point in the summary but I felt it was fairly obvious. So the summary is inline with the issue I had with the source and the explanation above. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I'm understanding correctly:

1. You are saying that the problem with the Misplaced Pages article is that it just said she opposed "immigration" but left out "illegal immigration". The source, as you said, claims she's opposed to "immigration" and "illegal immigration", so you fixed the problem at the article by changing it to say she only opposed "illegal immigration"?

2. You are saying that the only possible problem with the edit summaries where you stated "restoring to match source" and "did you read the source?" is that you failed mention that you had concerns about the integrity of the source? ~Awilley (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Eh, close enough to right. BTW my change was a revert, not me specifically changing it to illegal immigration. PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, and you also neglected to mention your concerns about the source in your first talkpage comment? ~Awilley (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Yes I made part of my point on the talk page. What is your point? I would like to help you release your mistakes here but this line of questioning does not seem to be accomplishing that. Is there something more I can do to help you? PackMecEng (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, you could help me out with a hypothetical situation. Imagine yourself as a law enforcement officer of some sort. You clearly see someone doing something that is obviously against the law. You stop them and ask them about it and they make a huge fuss saying they did absolutely nothing wrong, while contradicting themselves multiple times in their statement. You really want to let them off with a warning, but only if they can assure you that the problem won't repeat itself. However they are either unwilling or unable to take the first step of recognizing that the problem even exists. What do you do? ~Awilley (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: OOOHhhhh I see what you are doing wrong now. You are going into it with the obviously against the law stuck in your head, even though everyone else has disagreed with you up to this point on that. Yeah you need to let that go. Everyone on the article talk page understood(which is how the content was corrected), as well as the other two users that commented here. The only ones that do not seem to understand that are you and Snoogans(You know that one that has an indef sanction for POV pushing at tons of articles). Okay it is all more clear now. I politely request you carefully re-evaluate your position here and perhaps drop the WP:STICK. Also keep in mind the law of holes. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

So User:BullRangifer and User:Objective3000 were taking your side with these comments? And Snoogans must be in the wrong because they got a sanction last year. ~Awilley (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Pretty much, since we all worked together to solve the issue. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Awilley, you wrote, "I got 3 hits in 2 paragraphs, and all of them seem to best support Snooganssnoogans's position" This kind of viewpoint is what's killing Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia: focus on what editors think, how well they Wikilawyer their "position", and what we can quickly find on the internet, rather than everyone having the proper focus on what's the truth (yeah, yeah, I know "verifiability over truth" - meh), what's encyclopedic, what's real, what's beneficial to the reader, what properly informs the reader about the article subject in an encyclopedic manner. What you've written here is about who won the argument (in your opinion) not what best serves the original Misplaced Pages purpose. I long for the day editors get back to the basics and realities of what writing an encyclopedia is about/how it's done instead of focusing on the editors and their opinions on the subject of an article. You used to be an editor who knew the difference and stuck to the purpose. Now? I think your statement I quoted above (and all of your following comments) shows something very different. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It is kind of funny with that isn't it. With "verifiability over truth", but it could be argued that The Truth™ is what some are trying to promote and painting it as verifiability. Promotion of weak sources for controversial BLP subjects and cherry picked lines are the dish of the day. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the article in question is contextually referring to illegal immigration. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)