User talk:MelanieN/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Indian universities redux

Thought I'd better start a new topic now that the original one has wandered so far up the page.

Here's a hopeful new named account attempt: Jaisingh55 [1], doing his boo-boos on Talk:Galgotias University. Pray smash. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. I wonder what in the world they thought that particular edit was going to accomplish? --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

How could you?!

Blocked your husband[2]? Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL! Thank you for this, it's always good to start the morning with a laugh. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it because he attacked CNN at wrestle mania? [3] lol who does this kind of stuff? Pretty funny though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree, it was funnier than the usual vandal. Pretty good imitation, except that RealDonaldTrump doesn't usually post in all-caps. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you bet User:Genseric, King of the Vaandals and Sacker of Rome is the same person? (In fact I have a hunch who it is, but this is a new approach for them.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

They certainly seem to like their long user names and disdain for Trump. Also creation time about an hour after the first one was blocked. I'm a little new to get to know all the sock masters floating around. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How would one go about proposing a site-wide style change?

Hi. One thing that has been bugging me about Wikipedia's pages on immigration is the inconsistency in usage of "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented immigrant", and the constant edit warring that this causes. Would it be possible to propose a site-wide style rule where Wikipedia opts for the usage of one of these terms across its pages? What is the appropriate forum? What rules do I need to cite? Is there some other admin that I should approach with this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling I have already seen this discussed somewhere. Let me see if I can find it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: The current article is called "Illegal immigration". What to call it is in the section Illegal_immigration#Terminology. At the talk page, there were several previous, informal discussions about terminology several years ago, see Archive 2. In 2015 there was a Requested Move of that article to Undocumented immigration; the result was not moved.

I checked the NPOV Noticeboard to see if that was where I saw something recent. Nothing recent. It was discussed there in 2015, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 54#Illegal vs undocumented. The discussion was heated and reached no conclusion.

I could not find anything more recent, but it looks as if consensus up through 2015 was pretty strongly for "illegal". Things could have changed since then but it could be an uphill battle. In the meantime, the fact that our article is called "Illegal immigration" would seem to suggest that is Wikipedia's choice of terminology. Any stalkers care to chime in, with comments or a suggested venue for a discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If you are looking to establish Wikipedia-wide style, one possible place to discuss it might be WT:Manual of Style/Words to watch. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I would only propose changing illegal to undocumented in relation to individuals who migrate, not the act of immigration. So 'illegal immigration' would be fine, but 'illegal immigrant' would not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump/Russia

I'm not planning to talk about Trump/Russia stuff on the Donald Trump page as long as my AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team is open. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to make sure people had the opportunity to weigh in if they want. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Blatant bias against Trump and nothing on Hillary

I don't understand what is complicated about this. These specific negative qualifiers are listed in Trump's intro under the election portion:

-Old
-Rich
-Russia Hacking
-False statements

Ok. Well, these very important, speficic qualifiers can be accurately applied to Hillary, but are (ironically) missing from her intro:

-(also) Old
-(also) Several false statements
-Under FBI investigation
-Questionable tampering of DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders in collusion with DNC Chair (for which there is email evidence)

There is NOTHING misleading or controversial about anything I added to that article. It is literally all factual information, for which I included citations. I have a feeling it is being reverted, not because it is "actually" controversial, but rather because of selective bias in favor of Hillary, and against Trump. You guys talk about POV, but Trump's entire intro is almost entirely written with a negative connotation, while Hillary's is a complete 180. If this info can be listed for Trump, it can be listed for Hillary as well.

Either remove it from Trump, or level the playing field with Hillary. Us average folk are sick to death of having the truth hidden from us, and having this bias thrown in our faces all day. Wikipedia used to be my safe haven from the Fox News/MSNBC paradigm, but it appears that is no longer the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablust (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please make these comments at the article talk page, and I will reply there. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Politely requesting to be brought up to speed so I can start editing Trump-Russia

Hi MelanieN, I notice you are an admin, so you're vetted as a top-tier wikipedian. I've been a past wikipedian and got re-interested by the American citizen who was stuck in North Korea then brought back here and died. I've got probably 5000 edits under my belt, lifetime. I wish to join the fray in roughly the 2-3 articles which I see your name all over the talk pages and edit histories. Mainly Trump-Russia since that is very interesting, exciting, and Wikipedia gets to officially declare and write an authoritative version of history into an online encyclopedia.

Introductories aside now, I'd like to address a specific issue. I'm an avid reader of WaPo, NYT, USA Today, and avid consumer of news media. I only watch and read news from reliable sources because why bother learning about the world from sources that are unreliable? With as gentle, respectful tone as possible, I'd like to start editing but first wish to ask you why you believe that reliable sources affirmatively indicate Russian interfererence in the 2016 election as a proven, definitive event? I've skimmed the relevant lengthy discussions you've had with Thuddy where you don't quite definitively give an explanation of the question I'm bringing here.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for your years of improving articles through tireless editing. It's a proud feeling. 67.233.35.234 (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the note. I don't see anything stopping you from contributing to that article. You have already chimed in at the Donald Trump talk page, where you made a reasonable comment and nobody bit you. What is your hesitation about the Russia-interference article? (Of course, you realize that you will have to register a username if you wish to edit the article itself rather than just the talk page.) As for the "reliable sources" question, I see that Thucydides (Thuddy???) is raising the same issue again there, so I guess I will go and answer it again. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

Hi,

Thanks for protecting my talk page. That's 4 times in the last month it's had to be protected. Is it something I did? Adam9007 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's probably something you are doing RIGHT. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Peter W. Smith

On 22 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peter W. Smith, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that investment banker Peter W. Smith contacted Russian hackers in an unsuccessful attempt to locate missing emails from Hillary Clinton's computer system? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter W. Smith. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Peter W. Smith), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian universities again

(new message from old thread moved to bottom of page) And thus it begins again... plus Maulana Azad Medical College Ravensfire (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Persistent little so-and-so, isn't he? The second one is new. We can probably expect more since some of the protections are expiring. I'd suggest you start a new thread on my page any time it's been a week or so since the previous incident. Otherwise I (and you) have to hunt back through all the old messages to find the previous thread. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Welcome to the English language Indian Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, but we (Ravensfire and I) have been dealing with this particular spammer for quite a while now. He keeps inserting a phone number into the articles; apparently he has some kind of advice or "we will help you get in!" service for Indian medical universities. What he thinks he will gain by inserting his phone number into random places in the articles is anybody's guess. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's rather crazy but I have to admire their persistence to some extent. I had experimented with some regex at one point, but it was pulling in too many other articles. That was early in my use of regex, so maybe it's worth experimenting with again after another year+ of using it at work. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Violence threats

At Lesbian feminism, User talk:Simplexity22, and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Almost certainty needs revdelling. WP:999 have been informed. Adam9007 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 this is a longterm vandal. Reporting and rev del are necessary, but the accounts should also probably be blocked for socking. I'm not sure if we have an LTA case on it for reference. Oshwah might know. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I reported the exact same thing the other day. The account has been blocked, but the edits are still visible. Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I've run across it once or twice before. Check for cross-wiki vandalism (which sometimes happens on those accounts), and if it is happening, I would request a global lock from a steward. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The account is globally locked, and it looks like GeneralizationsAreBad has handled the revdelling. Adam9007 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Oldest one I can find is Memsmsmssmsss (talk · contribs · count). I don't know who this is. GAB^gab 01:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad, I first came across it on this IP in March, and I am pretty confident it was old news by then. Sorry to Melanie for using her talk page as a general forum to discuss abusive editors :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you, that's helpful. I've traced it back to our old friend, PhoenixS15 (talk · contribs · count). GAB^gab 01:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free any time. As you can see, Adam, posting something here can work out very well; it is very likely to get handled very quickly by some of the best stalkers on Wikipedia, before I even log on. Glad to see you worked it all out! You do have to wonder what is wrong with these people though ... --MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh, look at that history at Lesbian feminism! That is completely unacceptable. I have protected it for 2 months. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You do have to wonder what is wrong with these people though I sometimes wonder what is wrong with me: why didn't it occur to me to ask the blocking admin to revdel? Oh well, I suppose the important thing is that the alarm was raised. Adam9007 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the SPI archive for PhoenixS15, I see that this exact same edit, same wording, same threat, is what he ALWAYS does. (Slight variation in the city or country - I saw Singapore, Switzerland, Swaziland.) I'm thinking that if we see this again, we probably don't need to call WP911, just revert, block, and revdel. This just appears to be what he says - and has been saying since at least December. What do the rest of you think, should we report it anyhow - on the off chance he might be serious this time? --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, WP:999 does say that we must treat all claims seriously. Adam9007 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That's probably the best approach. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The LTA that is the sock master of these accounts that do this is PhoenixS15. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah. I'll recognize them if they come back. They seem to be very predictable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

POV summary

Just curious...Melanie - I find your edit summary, removing POV wording a bit confusing because if you consider the words previously admitted to be POV, what do you consider previously denied since denied is the antonym for admitted? I did not revert your edit because it's petty but at the same time, I'm curious to know why you consider the wording to be POV? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC) ^{Correct diff21:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)}

Thanks for your note. That's the wrong diff, but I know what you are talking about. "Denied" is standard terminology when someone is responding to something that has said about them; it doesn't carry any implications. "Admitted" has a built-in POV, with the implication "aha, we got them to admit it!"

• "Admit: confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance; the office finally admitted that several prisoners had been injured." [4]
• "To concede as true; to acknowledge or assent to, as an allegation which it is impossible to deny; to own or confess."[5]

It's one of those words, like "claimed" (which implies that we don't believe what they are saying), that should generally not be used at Wikipedia.--MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That's twice today I screwed-up a diff. I have no excuse, my fault, my apologies, but I think it might have something to do with me changing browsers and/or not clearing the cache. Thank you for explaining - makes perfect sense. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sean Hannity talk page

A block-evading IP (see User_talk:2602:304:CDA0:C1A0:447E:FB2B:4C74:A511) ranted on Talk:Sean_Hannity. I was going to revert them per WP:BLOCKEVASION, but I was too slow and you replied. I'll leave it up to you whether to leave it, or revert their posts along with your own. Alsee (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Alsee. I reverted it all per WP:RBI. I'll know them if I see them again. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I filed WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#IPv6_rangeblock_request, so hopefully none of us will be seeing them again any time soon. Grin. If you happen to be familiar with IPv6 rangeblocks, you may want to take the case. I provided a detailed analysis of the range involved. Alsee (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, you took it to the experts. I am not techie enough to do rangeblocks. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

Are Hannity and Maddow subject to AE since they are both BLPs and political pundits? I'm asking because Volunteer Marek reverted my work twice at Rachel Maddow while I had the In use template on the page. REVERTS: [6],[7]. He accused me of violating WP:BLP which he seems to think justifies his reverts, and posted a rather rude comment on my TP. I never got the chance to finish what I was doing and I had put a substantial amount of work into it. Luckily I saved some of it to my notepad. The part I had finished was cited with inline text attribution to WaPo and other RS, so I just need to know if that article has a revert limit imposed and if so, under what sanction. His behavior is highly disruptive, and he refuses to collaborate in a way that is amenable to productive collaboration. I try to stay away from editors like him because dealing with the disruption can be a time sink. Unfortunately, he keeps showing up wherever I'm editing so the issue is more than just his reverting. What do you recommend as my best course of action to stop his disruption so that I can continue with my work in areas where it is obviously needed? ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You used cherry picked opinion pieces, arguably misinterpreted these, to put some ridiculous claims in Wikipedia voice into the subject article's lead. Yeah, it was an obnoxious BLP violation. And no, the Maddow article is not subject to 1RR restriction.

One more thing - you really shouldn't be asking what the "best course of action to stop his disruption" is, since what you are asking is "how do I get to continue with my disruption"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep digging. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh, ok.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)--@Atsme and Volunteer Marek:--In all fairness, VMarek's reversion in this particular case seems to be optimum.Adding conspiracy theorist to the lead and an entire paragraph--all based on a single opinion piece is a bit far-fetched and violates BLP.But, obviously, if you've got more reliable sources, develop the article/a portion of the article at a go, submit the changes and voila!--the issue becomes something largely different! But, simultaneously, I didn't understand what caused Marek to use such escalated tones aginst a long-time contributor.No comments on 1RR,DS et al.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric Perhaps you should read Sean Hannity which shows what NPOV looks like^{My mistake, the neutrality of that article is in question. So you could say it demonstrates how to treat cited material that is applicable to WP:DONTLIKE.14:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)} You are mistaken. The sources I cited were RS, and I used inline text attribution. If you are arguing now that it doesn't belong in Maddow, then it also doesn't belong in Hannity. There is absolutely no difference in the two as they are both political pundits. I am beginning to smell the strong stench of bias here, and that's not good for the project or these articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)^{Winged Blades of Godric, you also need to take note that the In use template was attached, I was in the middle of editing, and I had cited 3 different RS with WaPo being among them, and was still in the process of editing. There was no discussion, just blatant WP:DONTLIKE reverts. His actions were a sure sign of WP:BIAS not to mention disruptive.Atsme📞📧 14:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)}

Atsme, to answer your question, such articles are subject to arbitration enforcement as biographies but not as political articles. There is no 1RR restriction for biographies. The main restriction is described at the Maddow talk page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page." So, looking at the history: I see that you inserted the claim that Maddow is a "conspiracy theorist", citing it to two op-ed pieces. That's wrong to begin with - we can't cite op-ed pieces for factual information, especially characterizations of people. Further, one of the op-eds is from the National Review which is not a neutral source a partisan source; it is self-described as the voice of conservatism. We would not use a partisan outlet like the National Review as a source for something like this, any more than we would use a frankly liberal outlet such as Maddow herself to characterize another person. The other source is the Washington Post, which is a reliable source for news reporting, but this is an op-ed. So Volunteer Marek was quite correct to remove the material. Atsme, I assume you was inspired to do this by the recent dust-up at Sean Hannity about whether to call him a conspiracy theorist. (Hannity himself is the main source of claims that Maddow is a conspiracy theorist, in a kind of reverse-finger-pointing since he is so often called one himself.) The Hannity characterization was kept because it was based on reliable sources, but it triggered a burst of disruptive editing by a now-blocked IP, who added "conspiracy theorist" to the lede of half a dozen liberal commentators. I should quickly add that I don't consider your addition to be disruptive; it was just to one article and it did have references. IMO you were acting in good faith and just need to brush up on what constitutes a Reliable Source. But I do agree with removing it, twice if need be. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, please cite the relevant policy that says (1) only known [8] liberal sources partisan sources can't be used, and (2) op-ed pieces published in a RS are not considered reliable. Are editors ignoring what is being reported about the biases, except when it refers to conservative bias? Articles such as this tells us it may be time to pull our heads out of the sand. I think another consideration you may have overlooked is that President Trump is the sitting President of the U.S., and Maddow undeniably was acting as much like a conspiracy theorist about Trump's tax returns and Russia connection (which after 3 years remains as nothing more than allegations) as Sean Hannity was about the Seth Rich incident. Why is it not contentious editing to cite liberal sources (including his competition) alleging Hannity is a conspiracy theorist - also considering FOXNews still leads the pack in ratings that equal MSNBC & CNN combined - until Maddow started her conspiracy theory about Trump's tax returns, which catapulted her into the lead? I consider that worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. And let's not forget, I had the Inuse template on the page while I was editing and citing sources to support what I was adding and my work was reverted before I had the opportunity to finish. And you are saying now that you support what VM did? Are you sure about that? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And if I may add one more tidbit of information that I found quite interesting at Alexa regarding WaPo - scroll down to What sites are related to washingtonpost.com? And then read this POV, because you know what? As editors, we're supposed to include the various POVs because that + balance + weight = GAs that have potential to be FAs and that's what my work on WP represents. Consensus is supposed to be judged on the merits not the !vote, and the majority of issues I've seen resolved that involve politics and other "social issues" are often determined by the !vote. I hope that what little time I get to spend on WP will help resolve some of the controversial issues, which is why I left WP:TWL to join WP:NPP and WP:AFC, and why I enjoy helping new editors and doing what I can to make NPOV the priority. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, as editors, we're suppose to include the various points of view IN PROPORTION to how they're represented in reliable sources. The fact that you appear to have the problem with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (which is one of the WP:5PILLARS) is your problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, as editors we're supposed to leave any biases we may have at login. I still contend that what you did was inappropriate and disruptive. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm trying to get this straight in my head, MelanieN - you stated above: "Further, one of the op-eds is from the National Review which is not a neutral source a partisan source; it is self-described as the voice of conservatism. We would not use a partisan outlet like the National Review as a source for something like this, any more than we would use a frankly liberal outlet such as Maddow herself to characterize another person. The other source is the Washington Post, which is a reliable source for news reporting, but this is an op-ed." I asked you to please provide the relevant policies that support your statement because it is important to me and other editors who are confused over NPOV as applicable to BLPs. Perhaps you simply overlooked my question because there were others that you did answer - no problem - but my concern is that I've been accused of being noncompliant for doing what I believed was standard practice based on other articles I've collaborated on. What I enjoy doing most on WP is editing to improve the quality of articles to make them eligible for advancement to GA and possibly FA status. That's what I care about most. So can you please point me to the respective policies as I must be overlooking them, or not understanding what I've read? My reason for asking extends beyond the Hannity and Maddow BLPs. Just curious...would you consider the following sources acceptable for calling a BLP who sports conservative views a far right conspiracy theorist in WP voice - Media Matters for America, or this book if they are the only references that support the claim? What about if multiple 3rd party sources elude to it but don't actually use the terminology? Can WP editors make the claim in WP voice when summarizing the lead based on what they believe the article is relaying? ^{Atsme📞📧}

Atsme, for op-eds, here is the relevant policy, lifted from WP:RS: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. So you can use an op-ed written by "Mr X" that says "statement Y" to support the sentence, "Mr X said statement Y" but not much else. They really are quite low on the totem pole of reliable sources. ~Awilley (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Awilley but WP:RS is a guideline, not policy. When multiple 3rd party sources claim a publication leans left or right, or it's disclosed by the publication itself, such information shouldn't be ignored. The Harvard report proved the media bias against Trump; others have indicated a bias against conservatives in general, so I usually take that into consideration, don't you? There actually are close to or equally as many 3rd party sources that have made the claim about Maddow, and of course both pundits have made them against each other. Unfortunately, my work was reverted before I was given the opportunity to finish despite my having an in-use template attached. Another RS I was planning to include with in-text attribution (and quotes) was this one speaking to Maddow's reporting: "The Washington Post noted that the 'conspiracy theory' drew 'derision from across the political spectrum'." WaPo is behind a paywall for me now, so I can't include the quote outside The Intercept article. There was a pretty big portion devoted to Maddow's focus on the Russian conspiracy and the tax return fiasco, I believe. Then there's MSNBC's headline for for Maddow's show. Not sure what that headline means exactly. Other sources I was in the process of adding included Paste's review of her radio show. Claims in similar sources were sufficient to label Hannity, and are not unlike this mess described by Salon which Maddow as well as Hannity had to deal with from political opposition. There are more sources but I've provided enough to make my point. I was hoping the other questions I asked would have been answered as they directly address the abuse of labels like conspiracy theorist and the sources used to cite such claims on BLPs. If editors are setting a new standard by allowing it on some BLPs but not others, then something has to change, don't you think? I'm of the mind (and would be content to see) such labeling go away all together unless the person is actually a conspiracy theorist, not a pundit battling for ratings. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme, I'll try one more time. In the first place, the Washington Post quote does not come from a Washington Post news article; it comes from an opinion weblog ("The Fix") on the Washington Post website. You really need to get through your head that there is a difference between news reports and opinion pieces. News reports are fact-checked and subjected to editorial supervision. Op-eds are simply one person's opinion. News reports from Reliable Sources can be used to verify fact. Opinion pieces cannot be used as sources for anything except that person's opinion. In the second place, it was not Maddow who was accused of spreading a conspiracy theory in that blog piece; it was Lawrence O'Donnell, also from MSNBC. But your major point is correct: MSNBC is not a neutral news source. It doesn't claim to be. It is self-described as a partisan source. Just like the National Review. We would never use MSNBC as a source for facts, and we don't. You will not find any links to MSNBC in biography articles, any more than you will find links to Media Matters, or the Washington Times, or RT. They are not neutral, they do not have editorial control or "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy", and we do not use them. What we do use is mainstream sources with a reputation for generally being accurate, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times. Some pundits claim that these sources "lean" left or right, but their reporting is generally regarded as fact-based and uninfluenced by their editorial stance. For that matter, the Wall Street Journal is strongly conservative on its editorial pages, but it is regarded as a Reliable Source for its reporting.

As for There actually are close to or equally as many 3rd party sources that have made the claim about Maddow, that is simply false. There are nowhere near as many, and the few that do exist are not of encyclopedia quality, as Awilley and I and others have tried to explain. Please drop the stick. You are just demonstrating, over and over, that you do not understand our policy about the kind of sourcing needed for an encyclopedia - and are unwilling to learn. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for inserting my voice on a talk page. But, atsme, I think there are a few points that you might consider:

1. Hillary also received massive negative reporting, including articles from WaPo and NYT that often broke embarrassing stories.

2. The fact that someone receives mostly negative reporting does not “prove” bias. There may be a reason for a preponderance of articles that report negative actions. Look at the number of critical plaints from Republicans.

3. Historically, there was one paper, WaPo, that pushed the Watergate narrative and was heavily criticized and attacked for bias. In the end, they were vindicated.

4. Criticism of the U.S. press dates back to George Washington, and was actually more severe and biased in the country’s formative days where the press was often controlled by candidates.

5. The report to which you indicate as a “proof” of media bias, also states that Fox News has a larger percentage of negative than positive articles of Trump. Is Fox biased against Trump?

Look, those on the right or left see bias on the other “side”. We just use RS. The claim that the respected sources are biased in their reporting has not been “proved”. Whether the press is eviscerating a Democrat like LBJ for what he did in Vietnam, or a Republican like RMN for actions during his election, the press will report it. A nonbiased person knows that LBJ and RMN both made historically important contributions; but failed in other manners. The job of the Fourth Estate is to report. The fact that some don’t like some of the reporting does not indicate bias in the reporting. Objective3000 (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Objective3000 and it amazes me how much time is wasted worrying about what some editors "don't understand" -- as if that would change. SPECIFICO talk 00:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, SPECIFICO, I'm an optimist. And I support the motto to Assume Good Faith. I think it is worth engaging with people at least for a little while. If they prove to be an intractable case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, eventually I drop the stick myself. But even long-established editors are capable of learning. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

One must be an optimist against all odds. Oscar Wilde defined a pessimist: "One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both." I'm still working on optimism.:) Objective3000 (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40