Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 June 22
Miscellaneous desk | ||
---|---|---|
< June 21 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 23 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
June 22
editWhat did Jay Sekulow mean when he said President Trump wasn't under investigation?
editSekolow said one thing and then said what sounded like the opposite. But he said he wasn't contradicting himself, so what is the explanation?64.134.238.170 (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Are up referring to the Fox News interview? If so this has a transcript [1]. If that doesn't work, try [2] (about the middle of the page). He says "He -- Chirrs, let me be clear, you asked me a question about what the president's tweet was regarding the deputy attorney general of the United States. That's what you asked me. And I responded to what that legal theory would be." I'm not aware that Sekulow (correct spelling) has commented more on the Fox News interview so it's unlikely you'll get any more explaination of what he means. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from unsourced comments and speculation regarding (multiple) WP:BLP(s) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- μηδείς, how does any of what you've hidden violate BLP, which is about "adding information about living persons". What information has been added? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- It seems clear cut BLP violation to me. Yes it may have been a joke but a fairly pointless one and given the BLP violation there was no reason for it (although deletion would have been better than hatting). Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
still need specific sources to repeat these allegations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Clarity's comments were on the border between political satire and BLP violations. I say that because it's the same kind of thing that the late-night comics say. The difference is that they are expected to be satirists. Wikipedia is supposed to be serious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is, there's a lot of grey area as to when somebody is "under investigation". The police often call somebody a "person of interest" specifically to avoid saying they are under investigation. Anything short of a investigation specifically and exclusively targeting Trump could be characterized either way. Jay was trying to use this ambiguity to have it both ways, by saying Trump is not under investigation, to make Trump look innocent, and also saying that the people investigating him are being unfair. This is a rhetorical no-no. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Because it is obviously very important for Medeis to cover this up, though it makes no sense why...
- Medeis obviously doesn't want anyone to know that this article exists. If you read it, you will see that the Washington Post claimed that President Trump was under investigation. The Washington Post didn't just write one article about it. They wrote this and this also. Of course, Medeis wants you to know that these are alleged articles written by the Washington Post. They don't really exist.
- Next, Medeis is absolutely certain that this tweet does not exist. That is not the President's account with the little blue check on it. It was not discussed throughout media here and here and here and... well, why continue. Medeis says it is an alleged tweet. It doesn't exist. So, no matter how many articles are written about it, it still doesn't exist.
- Trump's lawyer, Sekulow absolutely did not go on Fox News Sunday to be interviewed by Wallace. The transcript, here is obviously a complete fabrication. If you dare read it, against Medeis' advice, you will see a discussion of the Washington Post claims, discussion of the President's tweet, and you will not see a series of questions in which Wallace tries to get Sekulow to say definitely "yes, the President is under investigation" or "no, the President is not under investigation." Sekulow repeats that the President has not been notified that he is under investigation.
- Finally, nobody ever visited this reference desk and asked what Sekulow meant with his responses to Wallace's questions.
- Quick, Medeis, hat this. Hide it. Don't let anybody see it. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Don't be an ass (well, too late for that advice, I guess). I insisted on sources per WP:BLP, not a cover-up, and you obviously know that, since you have conformed, and given sources. Has wikipedia defeated you? Next week, long division. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Naming a publication and giving the exact title of an article in that publication is a source. It has been considered a source for well over a century, if not two centuries. You demanded a URL, not a source. BLP does not require URLs. It requires sources. Purposely and stubbornly confusing the two is below you, which simply makes no sense why you insisted on it. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, see WP:PROVEIT. You are obviously unversed in BLP and just looking for a fight. I envy you the time you have on your hands to provide proper sourcing out of spite. I also find such dedication from a user hiding behind an IP just to name call impressive, in the way the invasive, inescapable, earthworm-killing New Zealand flatworm is impressive. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nowhere in BLP or PROVEIT does it state the a reference absolutely must be a URL. The example of a reference shown is "Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1.". From my point of view, this all hinges on you demanding that a URL be included with every reference. I disagree. A URL is not a requirement for a reference. It is nice, but not a requirement. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, see WP:PROVEIT. You are obviously unversed in BLP and just looking for a fight. I envy you the time you have on your hands to provide proper sourcing out of spite. I also find such dedication from a user hiding behind an IP just to name call impressive, in the way the invasive, inescapable, earthworm-killing New Zealand flatworm is impressive. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- There's nothing stopping anyone from seeing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding the word "alleged", I recently saw a newscast refer to the "alleged" London apartment building fire. Leaving open the possibility it's fake news ? StuRat (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, "alleged" is now often applied to acts that are known to have occurred, as well as to people who are believed to be their perpetrators. A great example of the destruction of the English language before our very eyes. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ignorant newscasters seem to have taken the sensible instructions to "refer to those accused of crimes as having 'allegedly' committed the crimes, prior to conviction" and mistaken them as "randomly sprinkle the word 'allegedly' in every sentence". Then there's referring to all criminals as "gentlemen": "That's when the gentleman opened fire into the crowd." StuRat (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Doctor Who: Questions & Answers
editIs there a Doctor Who website/site to ask questions and get answers? 31.48.57.254 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are many fan forums. Here's a Doctor Who wiki:[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Try this - https://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/forums/. Or just put "Doctor Who Forum" into Google (other search engines are available) and pick one from the long list that comes up. Wymspen (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted "question by block evading troll. David J Johnson (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- For that I'll refer you to the top of the page where it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." --†dismas†|(talk) 20:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
shoe size
edita mans shoe size of an 8 EEE what is the womans size equal to that size — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.2.170 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- According to Shoe size. In the U.S., a men's size 8 will be either a woman's size 12 or a women's size 9 depending on method. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently women's shoes do come in EEE widths: [4] and even EEEE: [5]. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)