Misplaced Pages

User talk:Valjean

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rusf10 (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 12 April 2019 (Arbitration Enforcement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:43, 12 April 2019 by Rusf10 (talk | contribs) (Arbitration Enforcement)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Misplaced Pages, the internet's crowd-sourced encyclopedia, has declared "fake news" on far-right site Breitbart, deeming the outlet an unreliable source for facts.
A basic citation template I like to use.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is a basic citation template I like to use:
  • Template: <ref name=" ">{{cite web |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |title= |website= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>
  • Contents: <ref name="Harding_11/15/2017">{{cite web |last=Harding |first=Luke |title=How Trump walked into Putin's web |website=] |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>

I like to choose a unique ref name, so I use the last name(s) of the author(s) and publication date.

  • See this citation tool: Yadkard
  • An alternative date format is the ISO format: "Harding-20171115"
This is good practice indeed. I also like that you use some breathing space between parameters, that makes citations much easier to read and update. Let me suggest an improvement: when you cite a newspaper, replace cite web by cite news, and use newspaper=The Guardian instead of website=The Guardian. There are handy substitutes for "newspaper": you may equivalently use "magazine" or the generic "work" (which I tend to use because it's shorter and always valid). It's also nice to link to the article of the cited newspaper, such as ]. Be careful that piped links in citations need to be made explicit, so that you need to type work=], not just work=]. Finally, ISO date is better practice because of the confusion that often arises between US and British ordering of months and days. Hope this helps; feel free to discard this message. — JFG 06:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Heck no! I'm keeping this great message. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Sources

  1. Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
Notable quotes
  • "When opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the weight it deserves, in some cases no mention at all. Framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinion which can be ignored, and frame debunked conspiracy theories as factual." -- BullRangifer
  • "Claims made with misleading evidence or no evidence whatsoever--especially in political contexts--should always be referred to as 'false' when they are utterly unfounded. If any evidence ever emerges for Seth Rich's involvement--or for any captive koalas--then another term should be considered." -- FatGandhi 15:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "For the 'whataboutism' thing to work, you need an actual 'about' to 'what'." -- Calton 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "My 'attitude', and that of Misplaced Pages (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters..." -- AndyTheGrump
  • "The root cause of the problem is the false equivalence given to the views of anti-fluoridationists and the scientific community. The scientific consensus, by definition, incorporates all significant valid viewpoints. It develops over time in response to new data. In maters of science, the scientific consensus view is inherently the neutral point of view for Misplaced Pages purposes. To "balance" that with anti- views is to compromise fundamental policy." -- Guy

Archives 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,TB, RS stash

Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."

-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR


Saved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Trump's dubious relationship to truth

We should just follow what RS say, and that will usually be "anti-Trump" and factual. That's just the way it works. At other times and with other presidents it might be otherwise. He just happens to be on the wrong side of facts much of the time, and since RS document that, it appears they are being "anti-Trump", when they are just defending facts.

Here are just a few of the myriad RS (I have saved literally hundreds of very RS on the subject) which document Trump's dubious relationship to truth (completely off-the-charts, beyond anything fact checkers have ever encountered):

  • "I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace
  • "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward."
  • President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims.
  • Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'
  • "...what's even more amazing than a President who is averaging -- repeat: averaging -- more than eight untruths a day is this: Trump's penchant for saying false things is exponentially increasing as his presidency wears on."
  • "hat we have never had is a president of the United States who uses lying and untruth as a basic method to promote his policies, his beliefs and his way of approaching the American people and engaging in the world.... Uniquely, we have a president who does not believe in truth." -- Carl Bernstein
Sources

  1. Folkenflik, David (August 20, 2018). "Rudy Giuliani Stuns Politicians And Philosophers With 'Truth Isn't Truth' Statement". NPR. Retrieved September 19, 2018.
  2. Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "Zurawik: Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  3. Kessler, Glenn; Rizzo, Salvador; Kelly, Meg (September 13, 2018). "President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  4. Toles, Tom (September 13, 2018). "Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  5. Cillizza, Chris (September 13, 2018). "Donald Trump's absolutely mind-boggling assault on facts is actually picking up steam". CNN. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  6. Keller, Megan (October 21, 2018). "Carl Bernstein: Trump 'uses lying and untruth as a basic method'". The Hill. Retrieved October 29, 2018.
Trump's falsehoods
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Trump's falsehoods

See also: Donald Trump § False statements

"I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace

As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks, and experience teaches that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because he's a "habitual liar". In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies".

Fact checkers have kept a close tally of his falsehoods, and, according to one study, the rate of false statements has increased, with the percentage of his words that are part of a false claim rising over the course of his presidency. According to The New York Times, Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office, 1,318 total in his first 263 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" political analysis column of The Washington Post, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. After 558 days in office, the tally was at 4,229 false or misleading claims, and it had risen to an average of 7.6 per day from 4.9 during Trump's first 100 days in office.

Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." Kessler also wrote: "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered ... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."

Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."

Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.

Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

Author, social scientist, and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".

In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."

David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."

Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

A poll in May 2018 found that "just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy".

The Editorial Board of The New York Times took this telling sideswipe at Trump when commenting on the unfitness of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court: "A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth."

Other sources
  • "The First 100 Lies: The Trump Team's Flurry Of Falsehoods. The president and his aides succeeded in reaching the mark in just 36 days." Igor Bobic
  • "Killing the Truth: How Trump's Attack on the Free Press Endangers Democracy" Philip Kotler
  • The New Yorker has published a series of 14 essays entitled "Trump and the Truth". They "examine the untruths that have fueled Donald Trump's Presidential campaign."
  • The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board wrote a seven-part series about Trump's dishonesty, starting with the article "Our Dishonest President".

Fact checking Trump

Trump's incessant attacks on the media, reliable sources, and truth have kept an army of fact checkers busy, the latter having never encountered a more deceptive public person. Tony Burman wrote: "The falsehoods and distortions uttered by Trump and his senior officials have particularly inflamed journalists and have been challenged — resulting in a growing prominence of 'fact-checkers' and investigative reporting."

Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers:

"Here's the problem: As fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in August, whereas Clinton lies as much as the average politician, President Donald Trump's lying is "off the charts." No prominent politician in memory bests Trump for spouting spectacular, egregious, easily disproved lies. The birther claim. The vote fraud claim. The attendance at the inauguration claim. And on and on and on. Every fact checker — Kessler, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact — finds a level of mendacity unequaled by any politician ever scrutinized. For instance, 70 percent of his campaign statements checked by PolitiFact were mostly false, totally false, or "pants on fire" false."

PolitiFact
  • "Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter"
  • "Donald Trump's file"
  • "PolitiFact designates the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump as our 2015 Lie of the Year."
  • "Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods."
  • "7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office."
FactCheck.org
  • Donald Trump's file
  • "100 Days of Whoppers. Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president."
  • "The Whoppers of 2017. President Trump monopolizes our list of the year's worst falsehoods and bogus claims."
The Washington Post
  • "Throughout President Trump's first 100 days, the Fact Checker team will be tracking false and misleading claims made by the president since Jan. 20. In the 33 days so far, we've counted 132 false or misleading claims."
  • "Fact-checking President Trump's claims on the Paris climate change deal"
  • President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims
Toronto Star

The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods:

  • "Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things."
  • "Confessions of a Trump Fact-Checker"
  • "The Star's running tally of the straight-up lies, exaggerations and deceptions the president of the United States of America has said, so far."
The Guardian
  • "How does Donald Trump lie? A fact checker's final guide."
  • "Smoke and mirrors: how Trump manipulates the media and opponents."

NOTE: Many of the sources above are older. The situation has not improved, but is rapidly getting much worse, as described by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Ashley Parker: "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true."

As Trump rapidly accelerates the rate of his false statements, one suspects he is following the advice of his friend and advisor, Steve Bannon:

"The Democrats don't matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit."

References

  1. Folkenflik, David (August 20, 2018). "Rudy Giuliani Stuns Politicians And Philosophers With 'Truth Isn't Truth' Statement". NPR. Retrieved September 19, 2018.
  2. ^ Qiu, Linda (April 29, 2017). "Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days". The New York Times.
  3. ^ Kessler, Glenn; Lee, Michelle Ye Hee (May 1, 2017). "President Trump's first 100 days: The fact check tally". The Washington Post.
  4. Qiu, Linda (June 22, 2017). "In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump". The New York Times.
  5. ^ Dale, Daniel (July 14, 2018). "Trump has said 1,340,330 words as president. They're getting more dishonest, a Star study shows". Toronto Star. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
  6. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). "Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication". The New York Times. Retrieved August 7, 2017.
  7. Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "Zurawik: Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  8. Stelter, Brian; Bernstein, Carl; Sullivan, Margaret; Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "How to cover a habitual liar". CNN. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  9. The New York Times (June 25, 2018). "Lies? False Claims? When Trump's Statements Aren't True". The New York Times. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
  10. Dale, Daniel (December 22, 2017). "Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn't worked". Toronto Star. Retrieved July 14, 2018.
  11. Lee, Michelle Ye Hee; Kessler, Glenn; Kelly, Meg (October 10, 2017). "President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
  12. "President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days". The Washington Post. November 14, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  13. Kessler, Glenn; Rizzo, Salvador; Kelly, Meg (August 1, 2018). "President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 11, 2018.
  14. Milbank, Dana (July 1, 2016). "The facts behind Donald Trump's many falsehoods". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
  15. Konnikova, Maria (January 20, 2017). "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
  16. ^ "Trump's trust problem". Politico. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
  17. "From the archives: Sean Spicer on Inauguration Day crowds". PolitiFact. January 21, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  18. "FACT CHECK: Was Donald Trump's Inauguration the Most Viewed in History?". Snopes. January 22, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  19. "The Facts on Crowd Size". FactCheck.org. January 23, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  20. Rein, Lisa (March 6, 2017). "Here are the photos that show Obama's inauguration crowd was bigger than Trump's". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2017.
  21. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie; Rosenberg, Matthew (January 21, 2017). "With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift". The New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2017.
  22. Makarechi, Kia (January 2, 2014). "Trump Spokesman Sean Spicer's Lecture on Media Accuracy Is Peppered With Lies". Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  23. Kessler, Glenn. "Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  24. Jaffe, Alexandra. "Kellyanne Conway: WH Spokesman Gave 'Alternative Facts' on Inauguration Crowd". NBC News. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  25. Blake, Aaron (January 22, 2017). "Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump's team has 'alternative facts.' Which pretty much says it all". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
  26. DePaulo, Bella (December 7, 2017). "Perspective - I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  27. DePaulo, Bella (December 9, 2017). "How President Trump's Lies Are Different From Other People's". Psychology Today. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  28. Smith, Jeremy Adam (March 24, 2017). "How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support". Scientific American. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  29. Fahrenthold, David (October 4, 2016). "Trump's co-author on 'The Art of the Deal' donates $55,000 royalty check to charity". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2017.
  30. "Journalist Says Trump Foundation May Have Engaged In 'Self-Dealing'". NPR. September 28, 2016. Retrieved March 1, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  31. Eder, Steve (October 3, 2016). "State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
  32. Fahrenthold, David A. (November 22, 2016). "Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on 'self-dealing,' new filing to IRS shows". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
  33. Farhi, Paul (April 10, 2017). "Washington Post's David Fahrenthold wins Pulitzer Prize for dogged reporting of Trump's philanthropy". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2017.
  34. The Pulitzer Prizes (April 10, 2017). "2017 Pulitzer Prize: National Reporting". pulitzer.org. Retrieved April 10, 2017.
  35. "Trump on Birtherism: Wrong, and Wrong". FactCheck.org. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  36. "Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk". PolitiFact. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  37. "Trump's electoral college victory not a 'massive landslide'". PolitiFact. December 11, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  38. "Trump Landslide? Nope". FactCheck.org. November 29, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  39. Seipel, Arnie (December 11, 2016). "FACT CHECK: Trump Falsely Claims A 'Massive Landslide Victory'". NPR. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  40. "Pants on Fire for Trump claim that millions voted illegally". PolitiFact. November 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  41. "Trump Claims Without Evidence that 3 to 5 Million Voted Illegally, Vows Investigation". Snopes. January 25, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  42. "FALSE: Donald Trump Opposed the Iraq War from the Beginning". Snopes. September 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  43. "Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War". PolitiFact. September 7, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  44. "Donald Trump and the Iraq War". FactCheck.org. February 19, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
  45. Manchester, Julia (May 17, 2018). "Poll: Just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy". The Hill. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
  46. Editorial Board (September 7, 2018). "Opinion - Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can't Be Trusted". The New York Times. Retrieved September 8, 2018.
  47. Bobic, Igor (February 26, 2017). "The First 100 Lies: The Trump Team's Flurry Of Falsehoods". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 5, 2017.
  48. Zakaria, Fareed (August 4, 2016). "The unbearable stench of Trump's B.S." The Washington Post. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
  49. Kotler, Philip (March 4, 2017). "Killing the Truth: How Trump's Attack on the Free Press Endangers Democracy". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 24, 2017.
  50. "Trump and the Truth. A series of reported essays that examine the untruths that have fueled Donald Trump's Presidential campaign". The New Yorker. September 2, 2016. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  51. Editorial Board (April 2, 2017). "Our Dishonest President". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
  52. Burman, Tony (February 11, 2017). "With Trump, the media faces a yuuge challenge". Toronto Star. Retrieved February 12, 2017.
  53. Prentice, Robert (February 10, 2017). "Being a liar doesn't mean you can't be a good president, but this is crazy". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved February 12, 2017.
  54. PolitiFact. "Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter". PolitiFact. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  55. PolitiFact (November 8, 2016). "Donald Trump's file". PolitiFact. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  56. PolitiFact (December 21, 2015). "2015 Lie of the Year: Donald Trump's campaign misstatements". PolitiFact. Retrieved February 23, 2017.
  57. Carroll, Lauren; Jacobson, Louis (March 23, 2017). "Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truth and falsehoods". PolitiFact. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  58. Healy, Gabrielle (April 28, 2017). "7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office". PolitiFact. Retrieved April 29, 2017.
  59. FactCheck.org (February 10, 2017). "Donald Trump archive". FactCheck.org. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  60. Jackson, Brooks (April 29, 2017). "100 Days of Whoppers". FactCheck.org. Retrieved August 26, 2018.
  61. Kiely, Eugene; Robertson, Lori; Farley, Robert; Gore, D'Angelo (December 20, 2017). "The Whoppers of 2017". FactCheck.org. Retrieved December 21, 2017.
  62. Ye Hee Lee, Michelle; Kessler, Glenn; Shapiro, Leslie (February 21, 2017). "100 days of Trump claims". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
  63. Kessler, Glenn; Lee, Michelle Ye Hee (June 1, 2017). "Fact-checking President Trump's claims on the Paris climate change deal". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
  64. Kessler, Glenn; Rizzo, Salvador; Kelly, Meg (September 13, 2018). "President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  65. Dale, Daniel (November 4, 2016). "Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things". Toronto Star. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  66. Dale, Daniel (October 19, 2016). "One Month, 253 Trump Untruths". Politico Magazine. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  67. Dale, Daniel (May 29, 2017). "Trump said just 6 false things in the last 10 days, his least dishonest stretch as president". Toronto Star. Retrieved May 29, 2017.
  68. Yuhas, Alan (November 7, 2016). "How does Donald Trump lie? A fact checker's final guide". The Guardian. Retrieved February 28, 2017.
  69. Yuhas, Alan (January 18, 2017). "Smoke and mirrors: how Trump manipulates the media and opponents". The Guardian. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
  70. Parker, Ashley (June 19, 2018). "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 26, 2018.
  71. Lewis, Michael (February 9, 2018). "Has Anyone Seen the President? Michael Lewis goes to Washington in search of Trump and winds up watching the State of the Union with Steve Bannon". Bloomberg News. Retrieved August 26, 2018.

User:MastCell/Quotes

User:MastCell/Quotes Awesome! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

ALLEGED interference? SMH!!

How is it possible that we allow people to edit political articles who ignore the following facts? They should be topic banned.

Allied foreign intelligence agencies were spying on Russians, not on the Trump campaign, and they overheard Russians discussing how the Trump campaign was illegally working with them to sabotage Hillary & steal the election. That alarmed our allies, as it should. What else should they have done but report it to the FBI? They did the right thing.

These editors reveal their lack of competence here:

SMH! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sergei Millian

We don't mention Sergei Millian (Sergei Kukut) at all, and yet he has been identified as the Dossier's Source D (and E), and many RS have discussed him and his proven and unproven roles in the Trump-Russia affairs and dossier (as Source D/E). Articles which mention him by name in connection with the dossier (after the release of the dossier) and/or just as Source D/E (both before and after release of the dossier) are fair game in this article.

RS reveal that his Trumpian tendency to hyperbole and self-promotion have rendered him an unwitting "loose lips" witness, similar to Papadopoulos, Giuliani, etc. Such people are very useful witnesses, much to Trump's chagrin. Later, when their revealings are seen as embarrassing, they try to deny, downplay, and even scrub the information, but history usually reveals they have exposed facts that should have been kept hidden, at least from the viewpoint of the Trump administration. They have thus placed themselves firmly in the center of Mueller's net for potential witnesses.

There is likely enough for an article about him, so I'm including a few articles from before release of the dossier.

Before release of dossier
  • September 8, 2016
  • November 1, 2016
After release of dossier
  • January 19, 2017
  • January 24, 2017
  • January 30, 2017
  • March 29, 2017
  • November 17, 2017
  • January 19, 2018
  • February 20, 2018
  • April 15, 2018
  • August 28, 2018
  • September 8, 2018
Not a RS for Misplaced Pages, but accurate and useful for research, linking to many RS
Sources

  1. Zavadski, Katie; Mak, Tim (September 8, 2016). "Meet The Man Who Is Spinning For Donald Trump In Russia". The Daily Beast. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  2. Belton, Catherine (November 1, 2016). "The shadowy Russian émigré touting Trump". Financial Times. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  3. Corn, David (January 19, 2017). "Investigators on the Trump-Russia Beat Should Talk to This Man". Mother Jones. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  4. Maremont, Mark (January 24, 2017). "Key Claims in Trump Dossier Said to Come From Head of Russian-American Business Group". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  5. Ross, Brian; Mosk, Matthew (January 30, 2017). "US-Russian Businessman Said to be Source of Key Trump Dossier Claims". ABC News. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  6. Helderman, Rosalind S.; Hamburger, Tom (March 29, 2017). "Who is 'Source D'? The man said to be behind the Trump-Russia dossier's most salacious claim". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  7. Bertrand, Natasha (November 17, 2017). "Kushner received emails from Sergei Millian — an alleged dossier source who was in touch with George Papadopoulos". Business Insider. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  8. Bertrand, Natasha (January 19, 2018). "Fusion GPS testimony brings alleged dossier source Sergei Millian back into the spotlight". Business Insider. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  9. Mosk, Matthew (February 20, 2018). "Congress's Trump-Russia investigators hunt for mystery man". ABC News. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  10. Prokop, Andrew (April 15, 2018). "Everything you wanted to know about the unverified Trump "pee tape" claim but were too embarrassed to ask". Vox. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  11. Mosk, Matthew; Santucci, John (August 28, 2018). "Mysterious 'key figure' in Russia probe sought Trump team contacts". ABC News. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  12. Kwong, Jessica (September 8, 2018). "Donald Trump Had 'Tricks Up His Sleeve' to Win Presidential Election, Alleged Steele Dossier Source Said". Newsweek.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Dossier

Hi, BR. About that essay-sized edit you were proposing to make to the dossier article (and I admit I didn't read all of it, and probably nobody did; it kind of defines TL/DR): I am willing to see if it can be trimmed down to a usable section in the article. Where do you propose I do that? Not at the talk page, certainly, but someplace where we can both work on it and talk about it. How about putting it in a user space draft under your own name? Might you consider first trying, yourself, to look at it with a critical eye toward trimming it?

P.S. Oh, I found it: it's in sandbox 5, right? Where we can see that it would add another 30 kb if added to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you got my ping, I assume. Please read the whole thing before you start. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As you can see I have been working today on trying to trim some of the bloat from the article, which at 225 kb is much, much bigger than it should be. For comparison the entire Donald Trump article is 386 kb. There is a lot of unnecessary detail, and some redundancy because the same subject is discussed in several places. I'm inclined to continue working on that, a section at a time, and maybe tackle the conspiracy theories material later. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to keep something in mind when comparing article size. Trump has a million subarticles, whereas this is just one article to cover a very notable subject that's still mentioned every single day. It is the key and roadmap for the whole Russia investigation. Just keep that in mind. It's very important. Also try to save the references. Such BLP sensitive stuff must have multiple sources, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Otherwise, simplifying is often welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Some questions for Trump supporters

I don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:

  1. there was Russian interference in the election?
  2. that it was for the purpose of helping Trump win?
  3. that there were numerous secretive meetings and connections between Trump family/campaign members and Russians/Russian agents?
  4. that they (including Trump himself) lied again and again about these meetings?
  5. that several have been convicted for doing so?
  6. that these meetings and lies were sufficient to justify strong suspicions of (a) conspiracy/collusion, (b) that it might have affected the election results in an unfair manner, and (c) that Trump might be a witting or unwitting Russian asset?
  7. and that it would have been very negligent of intelligence agencies (American and foreign allies were doing this) to not react by starting perfectly proper investigations of the (a) interference, (b) roles of Trump campaign and Russians, and (3) whether Trump was (and still) is acting just like a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly?

What's your position on these very well-established facts? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes

readded Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB
removed Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah
renamed Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

removed Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

added DeltaQuad
removed Kingturtle

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kirstjen Nielsen "Future employability"

I hear what you are saying ~ I have not had the chance to research Maggie Haberman ~ I hope to learn a lot from you ~ you sound like a very well educated person and I am always looking to learn but BLP seems to be a hot spot for me. I am only trying not to curve peoples judgments about a living person ~ especially one who was caught of guard by losing her job ~ thanks again ~ Mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mitchellhobbs, I've been here since 2003, and got an account in 2005, so I've seen a bit here, and my fingerprints and wordings are in a number of our most important policies. Our job is not to protect people, but to document what RS say. In cases of doubt, we tend to do some sort of protection, such as not including negative information that is trivial and not covered by RS, but only by gossip sources. We are especially protective of children.
For really negative allegations that are covered by multiple RS, even when false and libelous, we are required to include (see WP:PUBLICFIGURE) such information (failure to do so would be whitewashing and a serious violation of editorial neutrality, which is what NPOV is about). We must also include their denials, even when they are self-serving lies. (Criminals always deny.) Including denials is my contribution to that policy.
In this case, and I haven't been following very closely, it appears that RS are paying attention and commenting, so we may need to add it. In most cases involving politically-motivated boycotts, such as when Republicans or Democrats target the opposition to make life hard for them (both sides do it), the person's personal integrity ends up being their best defense.
If an otherwise honest person is targetted by a boycott, it only has a temporary effect and no real effect for future employment possibilities, since employers understand what's going on and ignore the smoke and noise. They know the person is honest and good, so they may hire them. By contrast, for people who are associated with nastiness, corruption, lying, etc, IOW nearly all those whom Trump has chosen to hire and associate with (he's always been this way), their poor reputation is well-deserved and a boycott just serves to put a magnifying glass up to their atrocious actions and bad character qualities. Many are literal criminals who have been convicted or are about to be. In such a case, the boycott may have a strong effect, as employers will look at the situation and think "Do I really want my company associated with someone who did those things, who has been rightly accused of those crimes, and who has been associated with Trump?" Wise employers will say "No way." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

AE

There is a discussion involving you at Arbitration Enforcement--Rusf10 (talk) 2:17 pm, 12 March 2019, Tuesday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC−4)

Category: