Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:43, 18 May 2020

Welcome BetsyRMadison!

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Mr Ernie (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and please note the Single-purpose account policy WP:SPA

I would like to extend you a warm welcome to Misplaced Pages. It's great that you've decided to joint the project this week and exclusively (so far) contribute only to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation.

I would also like to congratulate you on quickly learning to quote all manners of policies, such as WP:CONSISTENT. Knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies is important to better contribute to the project. Another one to consider is WP:SPA.

So, welcome again, and I, for one, look forward to your contributions. XavierItzm (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

To XavierItzm - Thank you for your very kind words of welcome. I am doing my best & working hard to adhere to all WP policies, rules, etc. For the record: My focus on the edits I've made so far are primarily due to time constraints in my personal life: job, family, kids, etc. I'm planning on contributing a great deal to many WP articles. Thank you again for your kind words.BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

It pains me to say this, considering the spirit of good faith, but it is clear that Betsy is not a new user, but a returning one with a detailed grasp of WP policies. If my suspicions are unfortunately correct, they may have even been an admin. Please have the candor to come clean here, and simply appeal your previous restrictions so you can freely edit again. Your contributions are positive and welcome. But not under such deception. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

To Mr Ernie - How dare you accuse me of those things!!! HOW DARE YOU!! Your vile accusations against me are disgusting and a form of harassment! Are you jealous of me? Is that why you decided to falsely accuse me?!?! Do you falsely accuse all new editors? BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

To Mr Ernie - I have been researching wikipedia on how to report an editor for intentionally harassing another editor with made-up, vile, untruthful accusations.

You posted your disgusting and intentionally made-up accusation against me under a message I got from XavierItzm.

How did you know XavierItzm commented on talk page? Are you monitoring my talk page? Does your harassment against me include cyberstalking me? I don't know how do to report your vile accusations against me yet or even if I can, but, I will keep a screenshot of your revolting, intentionally made-up, false accusations against me in the event I need it for any future act you do against me.

P.S. If you are cyberstalking my talk page, please stop. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

The first stop would be wp:ani. If you are that concerned about my behavior please create a report there. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Will do. And, BTW: you can gently or not so gently put your jealous, intentionally made-up lies about me where the sun does not shine. Please stop stalking my talk page. Please stop stalking me. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

You’ve pinged me several times. It’s not stalking when I respond to them. Please don’t use that word so carelessly. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There you go lying about me again: I've never "pinged you." And trust me, I'd never "ping you" even if I knew how - you ain't my pingin' type. You're obviously jealous of me. Sad. So sad. But your jealousy of me is your problem, not mine -- so grow up little one, and stop stalking me.BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I just don’t think you’re fooling anyone. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate, if you claim you don't know what a ping is, but have used a ping several times before including on this talk page above, but yet you are familiar with paragraph formatting and WP:SPADE and WP:CONSISTENT and pinging, then people probably won't take your claims seriously. Please take any further concerns to WP:ANI, where admins and neutral third parties who are more qualified than me can evaluate what you say. Alternatively, you can disclose previous accounts or possible WP:COI, and we can all get on with life. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, did it ever occur to you that perhaps BetsyRMadison truly does not understand what a "ping" is? They started addressing usernames at the beginning of their replies after seeing other editors do it on Talk Pages. Similarly, they didn't start paragraph formatting with indents right from the start; here they are seen adding them (1, 2) to fix their prior comments. They've also had five days to read up on Misplaced Pages policies thanks to the link they were given in the Welcome section above. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

*Dear AzureCitizen - Thank you, sincerely BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• ToMr Ernie - You silly little jealous critter. I've never pinged & have no idea what pinging is. And again, no matter what pingin' means, I'm 100% certain I'd never ping the likes of you. Somethin' tells me there ain't a person alive that'd find you their pingin' type ... but I digress.
  

Now yes little one, I am smart enough to research "Misplaced Pages Article Title" and comprehend what WP:CONSISTENT means within that wikipage, aren't you? Or, does it take you awhile to comprehend what you read? Days even?

And did it dawn on you that within my initiated talk discussion on "renaming an Article Title" is where I first used WP:CONSISTENT? Or were you too blinded with jealousy to notice that? Not sure about you ol' Ernie, but I tend to do research prior to making suggestions in a talk section. Do you comprehend "research?" Ya' ever do any?

Oh, and yes, I am also smart enough to click on WP:SPADE after an editor replied to me with WP:SPADE and obviously I'm smart enough to comprehend it's meaning so quickly that you couldn't stop yourself from seething with jealousy of me. That's right jealous one: editor Nice4What replied WP:SPADE to me at 15:38 and 16:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)), so naturally I clicked on it to see what it meant and ultimately used it myself for the first time in a reply back to Nice4What at 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC). psst... it's a short blurb, only 191 easy-to-understand words. So I gotta ask, how many days or weeks, did it take you to comprehend WP:SPADE? Seems you suffer from zero depth of curiosity which causes you to have fits of jealousy.

Serious questions: When someone replies to you something that you've never heard of, do you 1) stick your thumb up your crack or 2) do you research to find out what they're talking. Me, I do the latter, I research to find what they're talking about. You might wanna try it sometime you silly little jealous critter.

Now take some advice from ol' Betsy here: stop letting your jealousy consume you little one. Use that energy o' yours to make something of yourself. Do it for you ;) BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Betsy, please read this policy: Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Continue with those, as seen above, and I'm sure you'll be blocked. starship.paint (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear starship - This person, Mr Ernie, has been lurking on my talk page, harassing me, sending hideous, vile, and disgusting messages for over 2 days now. Please tell him to stop. Thank youBetsyRMadison (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I’m sorry for saying you may be a sock, and should have instead taken my concerns elsewhere. Please stop pinging me here, except for article collaborations. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Betsy, please graciously accept the apology and move on. In my judgment, Mr Ernie is not harassing or stalking you. It was just a misunderstanding. Also, please stop writing ] - that is pinging Mr Ernie, okay?

Now Betsy, onto a another matter. You have waded straight into one of the most controversial articles on Misplaced Pages. That's not a friendly place for newbies, and it is not surprising if your contributions were scrutinized. If you make mistakes, if you violate policies, don't be surprised if you get sanctioned. You have already been alerted, see the blue notice above. So tread carefully, and please be open to feedback. starship.paint (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear starship.paint - Thank you for intervening. As for that blue box, that was the first message the person harassing me, Ernie, sent to me. I had no idea what it meant, or why it was sent. So are you saying now that the blue box indicates that the person harassing me, Mr.Ernie, has "sanctioned" me? Holy cow!!! What rule or policy did I break? How will not break it again if I don't even know what I did? I'm puzzled and now even more concerned that the person harassing me, Mr.Ernie. is plotting to do even more despicable things to me. Please tell me how can I report him for harassing me? Thank you BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Betsy, no, you haven’t been sanctioned yet. Mr Ernie is not in a position to unilaterally place sanctions on you. Only admins’ decision, or a community decision, can result in sanctions. Now, please, stop playing the victim. You are not being harassed. The blue box warns you that American politics is a controversial topic, and there are strict rules that may result in sanctions if you break the rules. Like the below, violating copyright, is breaking the rules. So please read our polices at the top. starship.paint (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Your addition to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa (talk - I did not add any copyright material to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Are you sure you sent your message to the correct person? BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Dear Diannaa (talk - I know what you're talking about now. I added quotes from a newspaper and did not use quotation marks and did not credit the source. I am so sorry. I assure you it was an unintentional error and I will be much more careful.BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

That is incorrect. You copied the surrounding prose along with the quotations. That's what I had to remove.— Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa (talk - I'm not trying to sound stupid, but I am stupid when it comes to what you just said. So do you mind helping me understand so I don't make the same error again?

Here's where my head is so please tell me where I'm going wrong. As far as I can see, two of my edits were deleted. One, of the two, was from NYT & about the two staffers and I didn't use quotations and I didn't cite it.

The 2nd of the two was one sentence, and was a quote, I got from "Slate" that I did put in quotations.

So, when I got your first message, I took your advice & went to the Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources page and then to the WP:QUOTE & to WP:NFCC and I am still at a complete loss as to how I violated copyright? I mean, obviously I did, but I'd like to know how so I don't do it again.

I thought I followed those guidelines: I used a reliable source: Slate, I used quotation marks, I cited it, it was used to establish context of the Heading.

Like I said, I do not want to make that mistake again, so if you have time to explain it to me lay-terms I'd appreciate it BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Layman terms. Do not use Copy and Paste. Use your own writing. Paraphrase the material. starship.paint (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is one example, from the NY Times article. You added:

Melissa Lefko, a former staff assistant for Mr. Biden from 1992 to 1993, said she did not remember Ms. Reade. But she recalled that Mr. Biden’s office was a “very supportive environment for women.” She said she had never experienced any kind of harassment there, “When you work on the Hill, everyone knows who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and Biden was a good guy.”

It's okay to use brief quotations, but it's not okay to copy the surrounding prose. So I changed it to read:

Former staff assistant Melissa Lefko remembers the office as a “very supportive environment for women.” She said, “When you work on the Hill, everyone knows who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and Biden was a good guy.”<ref name="nyt" />

— Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa (talk) Thank you! Seeing your example was very helpful. I'm new here & working very hard to follow all the guidelines & policies, etc. I will use more caution in the future when editing. Thanks again!BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Warning: tendentious editing

Betsy, you just created three virtually identical subsections at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation attempting to add contentious material:

• Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Allegation Section Missing Half the Allegations & should be added
• Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#"Reade's Account" is missing HALF its information
• Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#HALF of Reade's Allegation MISSING From the Lead

I have repeatedly expressed to you that I have found your repetitive comments to be disruptive, and I have repeatedly asked you to stop. Your behavior is exhausting other editors and has the effect of pushing through a POV:

Sexual ASSAULT is the only scandalous part of these allegations, and nobody feels bad for public servants feeling like lamps, but I give up! Go on, then. Finish the job! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

OK Betsy but keep in mind that many of these editors are exhausted and may not be interested in long drawn-out discussions when they have several other articles that they are working on that need their attention as well. Gandydancer (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This behavior is happening so frequently and is dominating so much of the conversation that I'm not sure if there are any steps that can be taken before immediately taking you to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents based on your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Please stop this behavior immediately. This behavior may result in sanctions or banning from editing Misplaced Pages. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Betsy, the learning lesson here is not to create new discussions on the same topic. I think you've written about 27% of all text on that talk page. Given that this article is being very hotly edited, that percentage is a exceptional figure. Please try to be more concise. starship.paint (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

TO starship & Kolya Butternut I appreciate both of your input. I am still learning the ropes on how this forum works and I truly apologize for any unintentional disruption on my part. My writing style comes from decades of writing detailed technical scientific papers where it is ingrained in us to write as much technical detail, leaving nothing out, so that "a man from Mars" could walk away knowing: who, where, when, and what of the topic. So I apologize for letting my professional writing style get in my way in this forum. Please bear with me as I learn to adapt. Thank youBetsyRMadison (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

If your inexperience is causing these kinds of disruptive contributions I suggest you take on a less contentious and easier topic to work on. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

ToMyPreferredUsernameWasTaken - My contributions here have been, and are, to assist in providing facts and truth to this story. So I do not feel it would be wise for me, or anyone, to confuse my important contributions in here with some people not liking my detailed writing style. You know what they say, "don't confuse apples and oranges." But, I truly appreciate your input.Thanks ;) BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

If you want to become a better editor you need to start identifying the problems in your writing and not create excuses for the issues in them. Have a good day. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What was the subject area of your scientific papers?  You may consider contributing to those areas of Misplaced Pages. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't listen to these guys Betsy. You're doing fine. Making newbie mistakes is no crime. Volunteer Marek 14:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Quit doing the "us vs them" routine and grow up. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

And frankly these kinds of "go away and edit something else" comments from editors who have a different POV really smack of WP:HARASSMENT. Volunteer Marek 14:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To Volunteer Marek - Thanks for your words of encouragement! BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I know that sounded like I was suggesting that you contribute to your areas of expertise instead of at Joe Biden, but I was actually hoping to see you edit the subjects of your scientific papers, regardless of Joe Biden. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Betsy, I feel you have been unfairly aggressive with me when I have disagreed with your interpretation of the NPR's reporting of the police report at Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation#Police_Report_filed_with_D.C._Metro, particularly this exchange:

The police put Biden's name in the report. NPR reported that Biden's name is in the report. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - You make two serious allegations in your comment so I’ll address both:

1. To your allegation “the police put Biden’s name in the report.”
2. Provide the source you have that says "the police altered Reade’s report and put Biden’s name on it."

Show us any source that says “NPR obtained a copy of the report.”

To be clear: NPR does not say they obtained a copy of the report. USA Today does not say NPR obtained a copy of the report. Want to know who did? NYT, BI, Time, & AP all obtained a copy of the report and they all report Biden's name is not in Reade's report. So as a reminder, show us your source that says "The police altered Reade's report and put Biden's name it" and show your source that says “NPR obtained a copy of the report.” If you have no source to support your allegations; then, the police did not alter Reade’s report, NPR did not see the report so did not know if Biden’s name is on it, and Biden's name is not in the report as per: Reade directly, NYT, BI, Times & AP. The NPR verbiage must be deleted. Misrepresenting facts is no laughing matter. The last thing any encyclopedia or reference book/cite should do is practice in willfully misrepresenting facts. WP editors should not do that here. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The takeaway is that NPR reported that a record of the report names Biden. This is in your initial quote of the NPR piece. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please consider a different approach. Pinging admin @Awilley: who is good with addressing this problem. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Re

I made a few policy-based comments on talk, but would rather avoid editing this page in a future. A lot was published about it (this commentary seems to be especially fair), but I am certain that the accusation (beyond just the hugging) is definitely false. I could justify it, but this is not the place. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that article My very best wishes - I had not seen it. Take care & stay safe out thereBetsyRMadison (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't really edit these subjects. When I see certain things in US politics, I want to curse. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol! I agree with you 100%!!!! In politics nothing is real, everything is an illusion for appearance-sake only. Makes a body want to shake their head. Best to you too. Respectfully ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As expected, it was all about the presidential race rather than about the alleged "abuse". Well, looking from my perspective, what had happen so many years ago matters a lot less than his current age and abilities. This race reminds me about the old style Soviet gerontocracy. But more importantly, keeping the current administration will result in a lot more people ending up dead, and the economy in ruins. Therefore, there is only one choice during the coming elections, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To My very best wishes - thanks for sending me that article. DANG! I sure would like to see her personnel file and see what her alleged 1993 written complaint really says. Based off what she to told Washington Post, I feel her 1993 written complaint deals solely with her feeling "bullied" by staff for telling her not to dress so provocatively etc. She told the WaPo that her "criticism" is that Biden did not protect her. She wanted Biden to protect her. (Let that sink in)

I'm speculating now, but based off your CNN headline plus the Washington Post interview (below) it sure sounds like the any alleged "harassment" she went through in 1993 had nothing to do with Biden, but she did want his help to get of that alleged harassment

Washington Post writes, (emphasis added by me) (link here )

"In The Post interview last year, she laid more blame with Biden's staff for “bullying” her than with Biden. “This is what I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him who keep covering for him,” Reade said, adding later, “For instance, he should have known what was happening to me. Looking back now, that’s my criticism. Maybe he could have been a little more in touch with his own staff.”

The Washington Post went on to write:

"Reade was referring to alleged bullying, not alleged sexual assault. And Reade clearly gives the impression that Biden himself is not the person responsible for whatever wrongdoings she allegedly suffered.

The Washington Post continues,

"Reade said that in 1993 she filed a complaint with a congressional human resources or personnel office but did not remember the exact name. Her complaint dealt only with the alleged harassment, not the assault, she said."

From what you sent me, sure seems she didn't want Biden to run against her chosen candidate so she ....??

Can't wait to see her 1993 written complaint. Do you think she'll try to make it public, or keep it hidden? ~Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the problem. She said one thing about this in 2019, but something rather different in 2020. So, speaking logically, she lied in 2019 or/and in 2020. But I wonder how dirty this election campaign is going to be. Probably much worse than the previous one. It is already more dirty, given that Trump–Ukraine scandal was a part of digging the dirt on the very same presidential candidate, and it already resulted in the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, which, as Mr. President argued himself, was also a part of the election campaign. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's strange. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To My very best wishes - Not just strange, but seems to be a lot of holes in Reade's seemingly-ever-changing stories that give rise to more & more questions. For instance, her & her mom's definition of "sexual harassment" was Reade being told she dressed too "provocatively" at work. Reade told Washington Post that her 1993 filed complaint with Senate Human Resources had zero to do with Biden but everything to do with Biden not helping her with her coworkers. After all that's been said, I think Tara Reade owes us, the public, a copy of her 1993 complaint - which she can get if she asks the Secretary of the Senate for it. so why doesn't she? Why does she want to keep it hidden? More questions revolve around the years of Reade praising Biden and then suddenly, in December 2018, she professes her love of Putin and 4-months later she accuses Biden of touching her neck and shoulders but says her story about Biden is "not a story about sexual misconduct." only to change that 2019 story to "sexual assault" in 2020. What happened? Now it seems Reade's gone from changing her story yearly to changing her story monthly. The most glaring monthly-change is when she told Katie Halper in 3/24/2020 that she'll never forget Biden saying "do you want to go somewhere else" to May 8, 2020 when Reade old Megyn Kelly she'll never forget Biden saying "I want to f@#k you" Those two "I'll never forget" things are drastically different things. Then, when you add to that the information you posted today, her lawyer is a former employee of Putin ... dang! Yes, Reade's ever-changing stories are strange, odd, and filled with holes that leave lots of unanswered questions. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops, the above comment was meant for FollowTheSources - Sorry for tagging you My very best wishes ~Sincerely BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Sputnik it is. And I like quotation on ourpage Sputnik (news agency): "The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation, experts said, is to undermine the official version of events — even the very idea that there is a true version of events — and foster a kind of policy paralysis.". Even the very idea that there is a true version of events. Well, after looking at many WP pages, and especially related to Russia, a reader will think precisely that (for example, or ). I am not editing these pages any longer. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. The goal of such propaganda isn't to offer a clear alternative, it's to muddy the waters. For example, the specific action that Biden is now being accused of is literally the one that Trump bragged about on audio tape to Billy Bush. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda is a different topic but it does seem as though Trump (and Russia?) are involved in a disinformation propaganda stunt of trying to pin on Biden things Trump is guilty of. Here's an example: I read that over the weekend a Russian troll farm started the #ObamaGate on Twitter in an attempt to help Trump's campaign. After Trump started tweeting the same thing, a reporter asked Trump to specifically state the 'crime' Trump is trying to accuse Obama of thru the #ObamaGate but Trump got flustered and could not answer. Then, a day or 2 later, some GOP Senators started publicly accusing Biden of "crimes" and of "abusing power against a political opponent" - which - is exactly what Trump is Impeached for.

Another example is what FollowTheSources wrote about; Trump trying to pin on Biden crimes Trump is guilty of: sexual assault. One more thing I feel Trump is trying to pin on Biden that history seems to indicate Trump suffers from: dementia and ignorance.

All these things added together sure have me shaking my head. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Accusing your opponent of the things you are yourself guilty of is a fine example of muddying the waters. If I stole a car and accused you of car theft, then any mention of car theft and my name would bring up yours, even though you never did anything.

The relevance to what we're doing here on Misplaced Pages is that we shouldn't expect the sources to be cohesive. They're not going to add up to a single, clear story whose conclusions we can report. They're going to, quite intentionally, contradict each other and even themselves. So we can't cut through all this; all we can do is report everything and let the reader decide. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To FollowTheSources - I agree with you 100%. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what happens on many pages. WP collects all published garbage like a vacuum cleaner and provides it to a reader, which undermines "the very idea that there is a true version of events". Somehow I can not agree. An intelligent writer must understand the subject, especially in science, and write the page accordingly. Just "Follow The Sources", well, this is not so simple. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be easier with science than politics. We're not really in the business of, say, determining whether Halper and Moran are using Reade as part of a Russian plot to undermine Trump. Some of our sources say this, in about as many words. Others contradict it. Most ignore the idea completely or flatly state that they have no evidence for it.

For example, this source says: "There is no evidence to suggest Reade or Moran worked at the behest of Russia with respect to the Biden allegation."

It's not our job to research this on our own and decide that this source is wrong, so the best we can do is make sure that some ideas aren't conveniently forgotten about. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

With fresh political subjects like that one - yes, agree. But there are many subjects where the "the true version of events" has been actually established and published in most recent books on the subject. Now, are you going to include this from the cited source:

Over the weekend, another attorney, William Moran, told the AP he was working with Reade. Moran, who works at a law firm in Columbia, Maryland, previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya. A January 2017 report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign said Sputnik was part of “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine,” which “contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences....There is no evidence to suggest Reade or Moran worked at the behest of Russia with respect to the Biden allegation." to the page? You must if we want to follow this idea. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree; it belongs in the article. So does more material about Reade's breathless adoration for Russia. So long as this is not our original research but something that reliable secondary sources flag as being relevant, I see no problem with including it and a big problem with excluding it. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Any of you proud saboteurs see a problem with openly discussing your political agenda here while simultaneously making up stories of bias and personal attack about more legitimately neutral editors there? It's not a conspiracy, because you're highly visible. But it's still a flagrantly organized crime against the spirit of one of this site's core content policies. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)