Misplaced Pages

User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:02, 11 March 2018 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,425 edits →PRESERVE: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 23:32, 11 March 2018 edit undoValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,425 edits →PRESERVE: levelNext edit →
Line 133: Line 133:
{{reflist-talk}} {{reflist-talk}}


== PRESERVE == === PRESERVE ===


] means we try to respect good faith additions and improve, rather than delete, them. It's a very fundamental policy tied to the very goals of Misplaced Pages (create more content, rather than make the encyclopedia smaller). ] means we try to respect good faith additions and improve, rather than delete, them. It's a very fundamental policy tied to the very goals of Misplaced Pages (create more content, rather than make the encyclopedia smaller).

Revision as of 23:32, 11 March 2018

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

User info
A citation template I like to use.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A basic citation template I like to use. See this citation tool: Yadkard
<ref name=" ">{{cite web | last1= | first1= | last2= | first2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | accessdate= }}</ref>

I like to choose a ref name which will remain unique, so I use the last name(s) of the author(s) and publication date. Here's how it works:

<ref name="Harding_11/15/2017">{{cite web | last=Harding | first=Luke | title=How Trump walked into Putin's web | website=The Guardian | 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>

An alternative date format is the ISO format: "Harding-20171115"

References

  1. Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
Archiving icon
Archives 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,TB

Talk page negotiation table

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

-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR

Personal stash

Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden

Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Main article: Useful idiot
  • Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, says that "Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation".

We have really never seen anything like this. Former acting CIA director Michael Morell says that Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation. I'd prefer another term drawn from the arcana of the Soviet era: polezni durak. That's the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited. That's a pretty harsh term, and Trump supporters will no doubt be offended. But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation of all this that I can come up with right now. -- General Michael Hayden

This quote is especially interesting because it's Michael Hayden who quotes Michael Morell and then offers his own preference.

Both top intelligence men share secret knowledge about Trump's relationship to Russia. Hayden considers the descriptions rather "harsh", but also "benign" under the circumstances. They know far more than we do and that the reality about Trump is much worse than their descriptions. It's not often one finds such a unique example of contemporary usage of the term "useful fool".

If one tried to create an anonymized example of a classic use of the term for use in the Useful idiot article, one could not create a better example than this one. It uses the concept in two different ways; it's coming from two top intelligence officials; and it's about the most notable example in modern times. No wise or informed world leader would allow themselves to get into this situation, but it's happening right now.

This is both quotes from their original sources:

  • Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, described Trump as a "useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited."

Here's a joke about the Trump Tower meeting:

  • "A lawyer, a spy, a money launderer, and a mob boss walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, 'you must be here to talk about adoption'."

MelanieN, I thought you'd appreciate this. Those men know what they're talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Finds by MelanieN

Some more recent citations, based on his actions as president: Foreign policy; Steve Schmidt quoted at MSNBC; opinion piece at WaPo, quoting Madeline Albright and former FBI agent Clinton Watts. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek in December 2017: Putin’s “pawn” or “puppet”. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Her finds
"Clinton Watts, a former FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, earlier this year explained: Russian influence of Trump most likely falls into the category of what Madeleine Albright called a “Useful Idiot” – a “useful fool” – an enthusiast for Putin supportive of any issue or stance that feeds his ego and brings victory....As a “useful idiot,” Trump not only benefited from this influence effort, but he urged Russia to find Hilary Clinton’s missing emails...What’s more, the Kremlin now has useful idiots in the persons of Fox News hosts, right-wing American bloggers, talk show hosts and Stephen K. Bannon."
"... a far more grim consensus is developing in the topmost circles of the U.S. national security establishment: The president has become a pawn of America’s adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin."
"James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, virtually called Trump a Putin puppet. The Russian president, Clapper noted, is a former KGB “case officer,” or spy recruiter, who “knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president. That’s the appearance to me.”
“POTUS is a handlers’ dream,”
he may be the ultimate unwitting asset of Russia.”
“Everyone continues to dance around a clear assessment of what’s going on,” says Glenn Carle,...“My assessment,” he tells Newsweek, “is that Trump is actually working directly for the Russians.”

References

  1. ^ Hayden, Michael (November 3, 2016). "Former CIA chief: Trump is Russia's useful fool". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 19, 2017.
  2. Morell, Michael J. (August 12, 2016). "Opinion - I Ran the C.I.A. Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton". The New York Times. Retrieved March 4, 2018.
  3. Boot, Max (April 3, 2017). "Is Trump Russia's Useful Idiot, or Has He Been Irreparably Compromised?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved March 9, 2018.
  4. Rubin, Jennifer (November 12, 2017). "Russia's mark: A dangerous fool for a president". Washington Post. Retrieved March 9, 2018.
  5. Stein, Jeff (December 21, 2017). "Putin's Man in the White House? Real Trump Russia Scandal is Not Mere Collusion, U.S. Counterspies Say". Newsweek. Retrieved March 9, 2018.
  6. Watts, Clint (March 6, 2017). "Is Trump Russia's Manchurian Candidate? No. Here's Why". Foreign Policy Research Institute. Retrieved March 9, 2018.

Reliable sources stash

Is Fox News a RS?

BLP about Public figures

POLICY:

Shortcuts

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

  • Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
  • Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

EMPHASIS ADDED: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

A few things to note about this:

  1. There is a difference between how we handle public figures and relatively unknown persons. Misplaced Pages follows normal practice in real life, especially libel laws, where public persons are less protected than others. In the USA, a public person can rarely win a libel lawsuit; the bar to overwhelm the First amendment is set very high.

    Added to that is the unfortunate fact that Barrett v. Rosenthal protects the deliberate online repetition (not the original creation) of known libelous information found on the internet: a "user of interactive computer services" is "immune from liability ". The internet is the Wild West, where a law actually protects the spreading of proven lies.

    This is sad, and we do not participate in the spreading of lies, unless multiple RS have documented it. That's where we are forced to get involved, but here we also include more details and denials, and we label them as "allegations" until proven true.

  2. If the conditions are met (noteworthy, relevant, and well documented), "it belongs in the article".
  3. "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The subject has a COI and has no right to have it removed from Misplaced Pages or to stop us from covering it. By being a public person, they have relinquished the right to privacy, even of negative information. The WMF legal department will rarely side with such attempts where editors are properly following this policy.
  4. Allegations must be labeled "allegation". Important.
  5. If they have denied the allegation, their denial must be included. Important.

Many editors cite BLP, and even WP:PUBLIFIGURE, as if it means that negative and/or unproven information should not be included. No, that's not the way it works. That would be censorship, and that would violate NPOV. Just treat the allegation(s) sensitively, and neutrally document what multiple RS say.

Russian interference & election outcome. Trump vs. Clapper

Trump claims Russia had no effect on the election outcome
"There was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election." Trump, January 6, 2017
Trump: "While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organisations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election."
Clapper defends the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia tried to sway the election in Trump's favor, but that the intelligence community DID NOT TRY to judge if Russia was successful. Therefore it is false to claim that Russian efforts had no effect. We don't know.
James Clapper hit back at a Facebook exec’s assertion that Russia’s main objective wasn’t to swing the 2016 election. By Emily Stewart, Vox, February 18, 2018
James Clapper says he has “high confidence” Russia helped get Trump elected. Adam Beyer, Duke.edu, March 6, 2018
Clapper, however, said the intelligence community opted against attempting to judge the impact of Russian meddling on individual voters' decisions in a report that was made public last year. (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf)

Further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails)

  • That "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it after Duma (legislative elections) in late September." (Dossier, p. 22)

Find more sources:

https://www.google.com/search?q=dossier+Russians+kompromat+CLINTON+e-mails&client=firefox-b-1&ei=rb2gWsemEaif0gLn2K-YDA&start=10&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=626

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&biw=1366&bih=626&ei=08KgWvK9LeqR0wLi_peIDQ&q=dossier+clinton+emails&oq=dossier+clinton+emails&gs_l=psy-ab.3...973114.976952.0.977698.22.20.0.0.0.0.258.2311.7j7j3.17.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.16.2218...0j46j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i46k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.KrieHYjk0go

References

  1. Bertrand, Natasha (October 6, 2017). "Mueller reportedly interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier - here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with reality". Business Insider. Retrieved January 18, 2018.
  2. Helderman, Rosalind S.; Hamburger, Tom; Uhrmacher, Kevin; Muyskens, John (February 6, 2018). "Timeline: The making of the Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier". Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2018.

PRESERVE

WP:PRESERVE means we try to respect good faith additions and improve, rather than delete, them. It's a very fundamental policy tied to the very goals of Misplaced Pages (create more content, rather than make the encyclopedia smaller).

As long as certain basic policies are not violated (mentioned there), we should do just about everything possible to preserve content, rather than delete it. If such attempts fail, then it should be moved (not deleted) to the talk page for further work. Deletion is a last ditch action for good faith additions. There is no requirement that additions must be complete and perfect. We are all supposed to improve them. Sometimes that means moving the content to the talk page for work. That's fine. Editors should be treated respectfully and not discouraged by the careless trashing of their good faith efforts. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions Add topic