User talk:FactOrOpinion

Hello, FactOrOpinion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Simplified Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! User:Brock-brac (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I just made an edit on a page and forgot to describe the edit before publishing it. I don't see how to add the description about what I did subsequent to publishing. Thanks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Unfortunately, you cannot add or change the edit summary once you publish your changes - see Help:Edit summary#Fixing. To prevent that from happening again, you can go to your Preferences and check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can't add an edit summary to a prior edit. There are two things you can do; you can make a "dummy edit", or in other words an inconsequential change(like removing a space) and add your edit summary to that edit, like this: "Dummy edit: fixed spelling on prior edit". Or, you can post to the article talk page to describe your edit. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for taking time to answer my question! FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your questions & comments to me

Regarding your questions & comments to me To FactOrOpinion - I didn't want to clutter the WP article's talk page, so I decided to address your questions and comments on your talk page.   Regarding your question, you asked, "I'd like to add the main Court Listener link for U.S. v. Flynn to Flynn's page, but I'm not sure where. My sense is that the External Links section should be for biographic info about Flynn, not about the case. Is that right? I'd add it to the Plea Bargain section but can't figure out what to write." I don't really know how to answer that because I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. I've only been on WP for less than 2 months so my guess is that you know much more about how WP operates than I do.  That said, because I still don't know the ropes here, so whenever I have a question that pertains to a specific WP article, I go to that WP article's talk page and at the very top right hand side, click on "new section" and ask my question.  That way, my questions do not clutter up or detract from "sections" that other WP editors have initiated. Regarding your comments: The 2/21/2018 Protective Order is a court order governing the "Discovery" process after Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017. There are several ways we know that the 2/21/2018 Protective Order included the "FBI notes" (a.k.a. FBI 302s) and that Flynn, Flynn's lawyers and the court were in possession of them since 2018: 1. In 2018 court filings, Flynn's lawyers quote from those very same FBI notes 2. In December 2018 the Judge rejected Flynn's lawyers description of those FBI notes. 3. In 2019 court filings, Flynn's lawyers continue to quotes from those very same FBI notes. 4. In December 2019 the Judge, once again, rejected Flynn's lawyers description of those FBI notes.In short, the  2/21/2018 Protective Order included all information, including but not limited to FBI notes that the prosecutors have on the defendant (Flynn). Like I said on the talk page, "the content of the FBI notes have been in the general public since 2018, RS has been reporting about them via Flynn's case since 2018, and this WP article has been reporting on them since 2018 as well. On top of that, the 'trap' notion has also been discussed in RS and this WP article since 2018. So, there is literally nothing new about the FBI notes or the notion of 'trap.'While Bill Barr's release of the physical copies of the FBI notes are the only thing "new" to the general public, the content of them is not new to the general public, and the physical copies are not new to Flynn, Flynn's lawyers, or the Federal Court.   So, on Mike Flynn, we have a guy who lied to the FBI about national security issues, who then pleaded guilty in court two times to lying to the FBI over national security issues, and who now says he (Flynn) lied, while under oath, to the court both times he pleaded guilty so he wants to withdraw his guilty plea.  By the way, if Flynn is now admitting he lied to the court, two times, then does that mean Flynn is admitting he committed perjury? To quote Judge Sullivan on Flynn lying to the FBI about national security issues, "a high-ranking government official who had betrayed the government’s trust by lying.  Mr. Flynn deceived not only F.B.I. agents, but also senior White House officials, who then repeated his lies to the American public. This is a very serious offense. This case is in a category by itself.” On Bill Barr: RS report that Bill Barr's actions in Flynn, Mueller, and Ukraine is Bill Barr trying to cast doubt on the FBI's legitimate investigation of Russia working with or coordinating with Trump's 2016 campaign to undermine 2016 US elections. [1] [2] [3] To quote another Judge, [4] "Barr’s handling of the report by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, saying that Mr. Barr put forward a “distorted” and “misleading” account of its findings and lacked credibility on the topic.  Mr. Barr could not be trusted, Judge Reggie B. Walton said, citing “inconsistencies” between the attorney general’s statements about the report when it was secret and its actual contents that turned out to be more damaging to President Trump. Mr. Barr’s “lack of candor” called into question his “credibility and, in turn, the department’s” assurances to the court." Sadly, several RS report that Bill Barr acts as though the taxpayers pay him to be Trump's personal attorney [5] [6] [7] [8] - I sure hope Bill Barr's not doing that; if true, that would be a travesty of justice that would be of concern all Americans. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Hi BetsyRMadison, thanks for your note. I’m going to reply here rather than on your talk page because it’s easier to view all of the exchange that way. If you prefer that I respond on your talk page, just let me know. Re: my question, although you created your account more recently than me, you’ve actually posted more to WP than I have, so I doubt I know more about how WP operates than you do. Certainly you seem more familiar with the codes used for formatting; prior to commenting on the Flynn talk page, I’d only ever used the visual editor. Thanks for the suggestion re: creating a new Talk section; I’ll either do that or post my question to some other place where I can get help, like the Teahouse (but I should probably do some searching first to see if I can find an already existing answer that addresses my question). I’d already been wondering if U.S. v. Flynn should have its own page, and if a page is created for the case, that resolves my question. But I haven’t ever created a page from scratch, and I’m somewhat inclined to wait a bit and see how the appellate court rules on the mandamus request and how Sullivan rules (if allowed) on the Motion to Dismiss, as those will determine whether the cases ends soon with charges being dismissed. If they’re dismissed, then a separate page might not be warranted; otherwise, it probably is warranted. IANAL, but as best I understand, the Protective Order applies to all discovery materials provided by the government to Flynn’s legal team, regardless of when they were turned over. For the materials that the government turned over, they didn’t do it on a single date, but they turned over over 22K pages of documents (let’s call that “Group A”). Flynn’s team submitted motions to compel production of additional Brady material in 2019, and the Government opposed, saying that it had already satisfied its Brady obligations, and the motions to compel additional Brady production were denied by Sullivan in a long ruling on 12/16/2019. Some or all of the requested material was nonetheless turned over by the DOJ in April (let’s call that “Group B”). When you refer to quotes from and descriptions of “those very same FBI notes,” I don’t know whether you referring to Group A or Group B or both. It sounds like you’re saying that Group B is a subset of Group A, and the Group B materials were simply made public in 2020. But unless the earlier quotes were from Group B, it’s not clear to me that Group B really is a subset of Group A. I’m not questioning that Flynn’s legal team quoted from and described FBI notes in 2018; they did. I’m just saying that quoting from / describing notes from Group A doesn’t imply that they also possessed the Group B material unless the quotes are clearly from Group B. The only way for me to resolve that would be to read their 2018 filings and compare quotes in those to the Group B materials, and right now, I don’t care enough to invest the time. For example, I did a quoted Google query on “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission” (a partial quote from Priestap, ““What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”) and date-limited the search to before April, 2020, and there are hardly any results, and the couple that I looked at are simply backdated pages, not results that truly precede 4/2020. Re: “If Flynn is now admitting he lied to the court, two times, then does that mean Flynn is admitting he committed perjury?,” my understanding is that it’s technically perjury but that many lawyers would argue against it being charged as perjury, since innocent people do sometimes plead guilty. On the other hand, if Flynn lied in his Jan. 2020 personal declaration, which was made under penalty of perjury, or if he lied to the court about something else, that’s more likely to lead to a perjury charge. As for Barr, unfortunately, I’m inclined to agree with those who characterize his actions as if he were Trump’s personal lawyer. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC) In both 2018 & 2019 Flynn's lawyers quote from the very same FBI notes that Bill Barr released to the public in April 2020. Yes, in 2018 Flynn's lawyer's were in possession of those FBI notes which is how they were able to quote them in 2018. In your scenario the FBI notes would be part of Group A. The physical copies Barr released in April 2020 include emails from FBI agents, Lisa Page & Peter Stzrok, discussing Flynn - here's a link to a 2018 Politico article discussing the exact same emails between the same two FBI agents [9]. Here's a few 2018 links where Flynn/Trump's people start a notion of "perjury trap" [10] [11]. There is only one person who caused & who is to blame for Mike Flynn to lie to the FBI over serious national security issued: Mike Flynn. Flynn pleaded guilty to willfully & knowingly lying to the FBI. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC) BetsyRMadison, re: "In both 2018 & 2019 Flynn's lawyers quote from the very same FBI notes that Bill Barr released to the public in April 2020," it's hard for me to check this for myself without knowing the dates you're referring to, which would let me look up the briefs and/or court transcripts to check the quotes. And even if I assume that that's true, if X pages of notes were released in April 2020 (and I haven't gone back to check what X is), unless we have quotes from each of the X pages or an explicit statement that all X pages were previously provided to Flynn's counsel, their having previously quoted from some of April 2020 release pages wouldn't imply that all X pages were given to them; it could instead be that Group B intersects with Group A but also includes some material not in Group A. The handwritten notes attributed to Priestap that I quoted from earlier seem like an example of something that wasn't previously given to Flynn's legal team. I don't have a Post subscription and don't want to use my limited monthly views for this. I did look at the Politico article, but it just makes a general reference to the Strzok/Page emails without quoting any (and again, even if they quoted from some, the question would be whether the specific emails they quoted from were also in the April 2020 release, so I'd still need to check). I know that Flynn twice pleaded guilty to willfully & knowingly lying to the FBI, and based on the evidence I've read to date, I believe that he is guilty. But I also recognize that innocent people are sometimes railroaded / sometimes get bad counsel / sometimes plead guilty when they aren't, and in general I try to be willing to change my mind when that's warranted. Right now, I think the April 2020 public release is mostly about a public relations effort by Barr, trying to create cover for the Motion to Dismiss (which doesn't present a good argument in my view) and/or for Trump to later pardon Flynn. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC) P.S. BetsyRMadison, I just came across this appendix to Judge Sullivan's 12/16/19 ruling about the motion for additional Brady material: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/144/1/united-states-v-flynn/ It seems like a good summary of what was previously provided, even though it doesn't specify the dates when they were provided. Some of the entries (e.g., #6) substantiate your claim about the Strzok-Page emails, but I'm less clear about the handwritten notes, and "already provided" doesn't guarantee that they provided 100% of relevant documents that exist, only (presumably) 100% of the relevant documents they'd found to date (so if there were some relevant documents that were lost somewhere or where they initially reviewed them and judged them to be "not relevant," they could have either found them later or reevaluated them later; it's possible that (some of) the April 2020 materials fall in that category). To FactOrOpinion - Both 2018 & 2019 information are in the WP article under "Delayed Sentencing" - which again - is why I asked the questions I did.  Honestly you don't need to reinvent the wheel, just read the WP article.  You may also want to read the talk page archives to see if that gives you more information. WP editors only include what RS report. If you want to read the briefs for your own information I can get them to you tomorrow, but I don't think you'd be able to use them in the WP article because I think that's what is considered "independent research" or something like that. Anyway, if you read the briefs & want to include something you find, you'd probably have to find a RS that discusses the part of the brief you want to discuss in the article. I'll send you those briefs tomorrow but in the meantime, read the WP article & the talk page archives. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC) PS FactOrOpinion - if you put your computer in incognito mode, you can read the WaPo articles free. Also, if you search "2018 Flynn perjury trap" you'll find a lot of 2018 RS articles on that & do the same for 2019. My point is the idea that "perjury trap" is a brand new or only 6 month old idea is patently false; in fact, it's a lie. Like I keep saying, since 2018 the notion of perjury trap has been discussed within the WP article. Finally, SPECIFICO has made brilliant points on the NPOV, DUE issues as well. SPECIFICO is a very welcoming, fantastic, and hardworking editor who can explain any question you have. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC) PPS FactOrOpinion - I was just reminded of another "allegedly new" topic swirling around the "allegedly new" FBI notes and that is: Mike Flynn Jr. In 2017, several RS reported that Mike Flynn & Flynn's lawyers were negotiating with Mueller to try to get Mike Flynn Jr out of legal trouble [12] [13] [14] [15] Seems at some point, the Flynn family thought it was a good idea to make money off foreign governments and hide their activities from US government. The only reason I'm telling you that is I don't want you to fall for any 'oh look this topic is new' when it's not new at all. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC) BetsyRMadison, I did read the WP page, but don't see info in the Delayed Sentencing section that allows me to (dis)confirm that all of the April 2020 materials were provided to Flynn's counsel previously. Re: whether the court materials (briefs, opinions, ...) are RSs, I assume that it depends on how they're used. Certainly quoting from these should be entirely legit. If anything, a primary source is more reliable for a quote than a secondary source like a news article (even one published by a RS), and there are plenty of citations from court docs in WP pages on legal cases. I was already aware that the idea of a perjury trap isn't new and that the SCO discussed Flynn's son with Flynn in 2017 (the idea that Flynn was coerced into a guilty plea to save his son has been around for years and is already touched on in the WP), but the FBI didn't sign any guarantee about that, and suggesting that they'd charge Flynn Jr. also isn't out of bounds given Jr's actual work for Flynn and the possible FARA violations. Thanks for the heads up though. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC) FactOrOpinion - It may be more helpful for me if you can you tell me exactly what relevant FBI notes that Bill Barr released that you think are missing from the RS reporting within the WP article? Also, if you do think something relevant is missing, why do you think it is relevant & what do you think makes it relevant? I ask those two questions because the content of the FBI notes are within the WP article (starting in the 3rd paragraph) so I think if you could please answer those questions it would be helpful for me to understand what you're not seeing. Links I told you I'd get you: 1) Link: 12/11/2018 to Flynn's lawyer's sentencing memo filed with the court [16] where they quote from the 1/24/2017 FBI notes (from the same 1/24/2017 notes Barr released) that the prosecutor gave them as per the 2/21/2018 Protective Order. Things to notice: Footnote 20: acknowledges that Flynn & Flynn's lawyers had possession of the FBI notes before they wrote their 12/11/2018 Sentencing Memo pursuant to 2/21/2018 Protective Order (don't be alarmed that you can't find the UNredacted version in the court docs because they had not been released to the public yet). Also notice: Footnote 20 also confirms that Flynn's lawyers only quoted from "selected" parts of the FBI notes - but they clearly confirm they had possession of those FBI notes prior to 12/11/2018. A few excerpts from 12/11/2018 Sentencing Memo: Footnote (20) Certain information summarized or quoted in this Memorandum derives from documents furnished to Defendant’s counsel pursuant to the Protective Order, United States v. Flynn, 17 CR232 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2018) (Doc. 22). Undersigned counsel conferred with the Government, which represented that disclosing the selected information does not constitute a violation of the Protective Order. Footnote (21) Memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2017(23) FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017, at 3 In the Sentencing Memo, Flynn's lawyers brag about how willing Flynn was to cooperate and write, "Flynn has accepted responsibility for his conduct. As the Government has made clear, his cooperation was not grudging or delayed. Rather, it preceded his guilty plea or any threatened indictment and began very shortly after he was first contacted for assistance by the Special Counsel’s Office." (*this is very important because 2 years later (12/2019) Flynn's new lawyer filed a motion with the court claiming that that constituted a Brady violation -- but naturally the judge called bs on that and ruled against that motion.) 2) Link: 12/14/2018 Prosecutor's response to Flynn's lawyer's sentencing memo [17] 3) Link: December 2019 Court ruling rejecting Flynn's new lawyer's claim of 'perjury trap' [18] 4) Link: NYT article discussing the Dec. 2019 Court ruling [19] which further discusses additional content of the FBI notes that Bill Barr released to the public four months later. [20] There are many court filed documents in the Flynn case, I've only linked to very few of them. I know you are working in good faith, as am I. With that disclaimer: I feel like much of this is a chase of a red-herring. In 2018 Flynn's lawyers make clear they had possession of the 1/27/2017 FBI notes (that Bill Barr released to the public). Since 2018 this WP article discusses the "content" of those FBI notes reported by RS. But, some people (not accusing you) want to chase the red-herring. What is the red-herring? The red-herring is: 'Gee, since Flynn's lawyers only quoted from "selected" parts of the 1/24/2017 FBI notes, then prove to me that they had the notes.' And that brings us to the red-herrings little brother: 'the 1/24/2017 FBI internal discussions of who, what, where, why & how to interview Flynn.' This will come as no shock, prosecutors & law enforcement have those internal discussions all day, every day in this country when they're about to interview a suspect -- especially a suspect (Flynn) involved in U.S. counterintelligence investigations. Similarly, defense lawyers also make the same types of notes on: who, what, where, when, & how to put forward a strategy against the prosecution. Usually those notes are not made public for obvious legal reasons. My point: no matter who, what, where, when, & why questions were deliberated by prosecutors prior to interviewing Flynn on 1/24/2017, there is only one person who chose to illegally, willfully and knowingly lie to the FBI and that one person is: Mike Flynn - who pleaded guilty two times to lying to the FBI & Flynn admitted he knew lying to the FBI is a crime before he did it. And who released red-herring & red-herring's little brother? Well, Bill Barr did. hmmmm.... Not to belabor this, but I personally think it's absurd to think that Flynn's lawyers would have recited every single word within the 1/24/2017 FBI notes and therefore, I think it's absurd to chase red-herring & red-herring's little brother. All herring's aside, the bottom line is: since 2018 the RfC has been met. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC) BetsyRMadison, this exchange arose out of a claim you made on the Talk page that "since February 2018 those very same FBI notes have been in the possession of Michael Flynn, Flynn's lawyers, and the Federal Court." It's certainly possible that that's true. But I distinguish between knowledge (warranted true belief) and beliefs that might be true but are less certain. We know that *many* FBI notes "have been in the possession of Michael Flynn, Flynn's lawyers, and the Federal Court" since Feb. of 2018. I'm simply not certain that all of the notes released in April 2020 fall in that category. For example, I haven't found evidence that the handwritten notes attributed to Priestap had previously been handed over. To be clear: I'm also not convinced that they needed to be handed over, as I don't find them exculpatory, despite Sidney Powell's and others' efforts to portray them that way. It's not clear to me that it's important for us to resolve whether all of the notes released in April 2020 have been in the possession of Flynn, his lawyers and the court since Feb. 2018, and it probably isn't worth the time it would take to totally resolve it. And before I forget, thanks for the links you provided, which make it easier for me to explore a bit further myself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC) I didn't want to clutter the WP article's talk page, so I decided to address your questions and comments on your talk page. Since it appears you are discussing article content, it should really go on the talk page of the article. It doesn't matter if it is cluttering up the page--countless talk pages are TL;DR and Wikipedia:Wall of text. [Other experienced editors might disagree with me on this.] If the discussion affects article content, other editors will need to know where to find it, and they won't know to look here. To address this, you could either add a link to this discussion (or copy all the content from this talk page to the article page, ideally with the other editor's permission). If you provide a link, include a permanent link, because talk pages discussions may later be archived. If you need help with how to make a permalink, I can explain.--David Tornheim (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC) David Tornheim - First, thanks for this info and your related comment in the next section. As you noted, we're both relatively new editors, and speaking for myself, there's a lot to learn about Wikipedia norms/culture. A quick question before I query Betsy re: whether she has a preference about copying the text to the Flynn Talk page vs. posting a permalink there to the exchange here: a bit of the exchange here is WP:NOTFORUM and a bit is about editor behavior. Those elements might incline me to copy most but not all of the exchange to the Talk page, except that I honestly don't want to spend time identifying that text and editing it out of the copy. I don't think any of it rises to level where it's really important keep it off the Talk page (at least, there are already a bunch of comments on the Talk page in both categories), but wanted to double-check with you whether there's anything else to consider re: the alternatives of copying to the Talk page (perhaps editing a bit out) vs. a permalink. My sense is that it's slightly easier for editors to have the text on the Talk page itself. Also, if it's copied to the Talk page in its entirety, is there any reason to keep it here rather than delete it? Re: your suggestion below about reverting a change, the change was never made on the article page; we were discussing possible text for the article, as there had been an RfC and people were trying to reach consensus about the text. I haven't created permalinks before; I'll look that up and get back to you if there's something I don't understand. Thanks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for listening. If it is WP:NOTFORUM and it would take a lot of work to figure out what comments might affect the article, providing links is probably better and easiest. So you don't have to worry about it any more, I'll just do it for you, okay? The main purpose of the my message is so both of you know the importance of keeping article discussion on article page. I'm glad you heard and understood the message. Also, if it's copied to the Talk page in its entirety, is there any reason to keep it here rather than delete it? If it is your talk page, no problem about deleting the original. The main concern about moving a discussion vs. using a link is making sure it is well labelled where it came from. Otherwise, if someone looks for the WP:diff where a statement was added (deleted or modified) by a particular edit on a particular day/time, they won't be able to find it in the page history. One of the key functions of Wikipedia (and other wikis) is the ability to track where information came from and was changed--moving discussions makes that much harder and more confusing. Note: If someone moves an entire page correctly, the history is moved with it. I answered your other question below. Help page for permalink is Help:Permanent_link (and also WP:OLDID) --David Tornheim (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC) David Tornheim Thanks, I've left a note for BetsyRMadison on her talk page, just to check whether she has a preference, and if it's OK with her, I'll add permalinks to the Michael Flynn talk page. If I've understood correctly, I can use Label1 and Label2, replacing "Label1" and "Label2" with appropriate text, which I'll figure out when I post them. I'm also not sure of what I need to say in the surrounding text -- just that she and I discussed some things here that are relevant to a Flynn Talk page section (and I'll figure out what section it is), and you suggested that we post links on the Talk page to these discussions? Also, I tried using Template:Oldid2, but it didn't work. I'm not sure why and I'm not sure how to show you what I tried. Do I simply post it, even though it will display improperly, so you can then look at the edit source text? Or should I switch out the braces for some other character or omit them, so that you can view the text here? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC) David Tornheim & FactOrOpinion - As you both know, I personally do not care if you two put these comments on the Mike Flynn talk page, but I do not think it is a good idea to that & here's why: much of this section is OR & FORUM so I am certain that many of the editors working on the MF page will care and won't be happy seeing a bunch of OR & FORUM in a permalink. All of the noteworthy items on this talk page that I & FactOrOpinion discussed we had already put, or later did put, on the MF talk page so I feel adding a permalink will be a distraction and possibly even disruptive to the other editors who are working hard on that page & who have already heard the noteworthy stuff we said. Also, if you two are building a permalink I prefer that no OR, FORUM go in a permalink because that may be disruptive as well, but if you two want it in, I can't stop you. As for the section below this one, I followed talk page guidelines and brought that issue here instead of on the MF talk page so I'm not sure why it should/would go in a permalink. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents, you two can make whatever other decisions you wish. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. David Tornheim & FactOrOpinion - When I re-read the FORUM that FactOrOpinion & I were having on this talk page, it does not appear that we were discussing ways to "improve" the article but rather tossing out OR and opinion that, as far as I know, do not belong on an article's talk pages. Like I said, you two do what you want, but I think it is a mistake to put our FORUM, that's riddled with OR on a permalink that will most likely disrupt the MF talk page which also does not belong on an article's talk page. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I wouldn't spend so much time worrying about this. I'll just put in the links, and we can drop the discussion. The permalink will not clutter the page--it's just a link, not the entire discussion. I see a lot of intensity in the discussion between you two. Often, after you make your point the first time and the other person hasn't understood it, there is really no need to repeat it if you are not adding anything new, because they will just repeat their perspective again, and it will go on ad infinitum... If they don't hear you the first 3 times, saying it one more time won't make any difference to them or the people reading it, it will just create a wall of text no one will want to read. It's often better to walk away, because the original point made is still there for all to see and for you to refer back to in a diff if there is any question about your take on the matter. Sometimes, editors end up with interaction bans if things stay that intense. Walking away from the negativity will help avoid further drama. See if you can find common ground and work together. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I refered to the above discussion here: Talk:Michael_Flynn#Further_discussion_re_"perjury_trap" (peramlink) --David Tornheim (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC) David Tornheim - Thanks, and my apology for having made things more complicated. That wasn't my intent. If you have time, I'd still appreciate your taking a look at the permalinks that I'd attempted to create, [21], and help me understand what I did wrong when I tried using the Template:Oldid2. I'll also look at the edit source for the permalinks you added to the Flynn talk page to see whether/how those differ from the permalinks I'd planned to use. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) FactOrOpinion - Don't know if this is intentional/unintentional or avoidable/unavoidable, but for some reason David Tornheim put your entire talk page in both permalinks making both permalinks very redundant & totally FORUMish. Yikes! Maybe one should be deleted since they're both a copy/paste of your entire talk page? SMH BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC) David Tornheim - 1) I did not give you permission to permalink anything from my personal page, so I deleted it from the MP talk page. 2) There is zero in the section of my talk that is intended to improve the article so it does belong on the article's talk page. Please do not assume you can permalink someone's personal talk page just because you think this or that, and stop including me in your questionable permalinks. For the record I have no intention of filing anything that would cause a "interaction ban." Long ago, both myself and FactsOrOpinion discussed our ability to be reasonable adults who know how to discuss/disagree without taking disagreements personal and without hindering our ability to work together. Neither I nor FOO have ever given any indication that we cannot work together -- so I find your accusation regarding that to be a form of personal attack against us, or at least, against our integrity. Also, FOO & I have never given any indication that we have anything except respect for each other as editors in part, because we both know that we both are working in good-faith - even when that good-faith causes us to disagree. I feel as though you make a lot of assumptions without having any factual basis behind yours assumption -- and the assumptions you're making here are unwarranted and I feel are a form of a personal attack against FOO & me. Bottom line: Please stop including my personal talk page in your questionable permalinks and please stop making assumptions about me & FOO. Thank you BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC) BetsyRMadison - When I asked you yesterday to "please stop accusing me of doing things I haven't done...," that was an indication that I've reached a point where I do feel that I'm having a hard time working with you. However, I still WP:AGF and had no thought of filing anything, and would rather not discuss it further at this point. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC) FactOrOpinion - In this diff [22] you, not me, but you brought up the topic of you misrepresenting the DOJ Motion to Dismiss. My only friendly advise to you would be for you to stop bringing up topics that will cause you feel as though you can't work with the editor you brought the topic up with -- because as you know, editors don't get to have one-sided conversations -- and if the conversation is going to cause you to feel you can't work with an editor; then it's good advice for you to not keep bring the topic up, which is what you did here. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike Flynn talk page

Mike Flynn talk page To FactOrOpinion - Firstly: you unwittingly misrepresented a legal filing to the court in your comment here [23] so please scratch out your error and please be more careful in the future. To be specific: you gave a partial quote from a legal brief and then unwittingly misrepresented it. Your partial quote: "In the Motion to Dismiss, the government asserted that “[the] investigation … seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn" Not only did you completely misrepresent the quote itself and its meaning in that paragraph, you then incorrectly claim that "The DOJ did imply a "false statements trap"" That is not true -- not even close to being legally true 1) The context of that quote has zero (0) to do with any notion of perjury trap or false statement trap. 2) The context of that quote had to do with the "merit" of the case and whether Flynn's lie is "material" to the counterintelligence investigation. The merit & whether of Flynn's lies were "material" to the FBI were established as early as 2017 when Mike Flynn pleaded guilty. 3) You also misrepresented the partial quote itself by putting "[the] investigation..." that close to "...seems to have." By doing that, you misrepresent the entire thing. here's what I mean: the words, "the investigation" are in the middle of a sentence on page 15 of the legal brief. The words "seems to have" are on page 17. The words "...an investigation" on page 17 cannot be switched to "[the] investigation" because in that changes the entire meaning of the paragraph with ends up misrepresenting what was actually said. As a result, you misrepresented the entire meaning behind both partial quotes you used. Secondly: And this has nothing to do with your comment on the talk page. The only way Bill Barr would have a chance to drop charges against a defendant who had already pleaded guilty two time to a very serious crime is by pretending that the original case against Flynn had no merit. Bill Barr knew not to make a claim that Flynn was set-up in a perjury trap or false statement trap for several legal reasons so his best bet, his only bet really, was to claim that even though Flynn lied to the FBI the case against Flynn should be dismissed because he original case had no merit and that's because, "the lie" requires demonstrating that the "lie" is “material” to the underlying investigation. This is an encyclopedia where accuracy matters, so again, please scratch out your error and be more careful in the future. Thank you BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC) BetsyRMadison, I agree that accuracy matters. I'm trying to be accurate. I disagree with your interpretation. IANAL, and I don't know your legal background. I've worked as a researcher with a lot of transcript data, and I'm pretty sensitive to not distorting meanings when excerpting text. A column by Marty Lederman (a Georgetown law prof. whose opinion I respect) brought that quote from the Motion to my attention. Lederman writes "The new DOJ motion to dismiss the charge against Flynn insinuates that the FBI undertook the interview primarily as a perjury trap," linking his claim to page 17 of the Motion to Dismiss: https://www.justsecurity.org/70431/understanding-the-michael-flynn-case-separating-the-wheat-from-the-chaff-and-the-proper-from-the-improper/#Martyeighteen Whether the lies are material to the CI affects whether the interview could be a false statements trap, as a false statements trap – like a perjury trap – requires that the false statements not be material to the ostensible investigation. I don't agree with the DOJ's argument there; Lederman does a good job laying out why not in section 17 of that column. The only words I omitted from the quote were "that—as explained above—," and I disagree that changing "an" to "the" changes the meaning, as both occurences of "investigation" refer to the FBI's CI investigation of Flynn. But it's also easy enough to place "the" outside the quote rather than have it brackets inside the quote. The DOJ didn't explicitly claim a false statements trap, but I agree with Lederman that they suggest one. If I need to edit something, I can certainly soften "imply" to "hint," "insinuate," "suggest," ... Or I can leave it as is, and you can simply say there that you disagree with my interpretation and with Lederman's. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC) To FactOrOpinion - You're wrong. You are 100% legally wrong. As a matter of fact, the lawyer, John Gleeson, that Judge Sullivan appointed to file an Amicus Curiae brief with the court [24] completely disagrees with your misinterpretation. You need to start using RS and avoid unreliable sources. I know you're working in good faith, but you are not a lawyer and you have no idea what you're talking about. Be more careful and scratch out the errors in your comment. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC) PS FactOrOpinion - Not only did the prosecutor not file any claim that Flynn is victim to "perjury trap," and not only is there no such thing as a "false statement trap" - Mike Flynn chose to illegally, willfully & knowingly lie - no one trapped him to lie, he chose to lie. And, as I've said before, since 2018 the RfC has been met. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC) BetsyRMadison, it's starting to feel like you're giving me orders, which is counterproductive. Re: the NYT article, you haven't quoted anything substantiating your claim that Gleeson "completely disagrees with [my] misinterpretation [sic]" of the DOJ's text, and I'm not sure what you're referring to. Also, if you really want to get into Gleeson's statements, you'd be better off focusing on the primary source, Gleeson's brief (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.223.2_3.pdf), instead of the NYT reporting about it. You seem to have badly misinterpreted what I wrote. To be clear: I'm not saying that the DOJ's claim in the Motion to Dismiss is true; in fact, I already told you that I don't agree with it. I agree with Gleeson (and Lederman) that Flynn's lies were material. I'm simply acknowledging that the DOJ said what they said, and that it implies a false statements trap. That Entity A claims X doesn't imply that X is true, and acknowledging that Entity A claimed X isn't suggesting that X is true. I agree that they didn't "file any claim that Flynn is victim to 'perjury trap.'" There's a difference between claiming X and implying X, and I only said that they implied a false statements trap, not that they claimed it. Re: RSs, I am free to read whatever I want and use my reading to inform my own understanding. Just Security is an academic site run out of NYU's Law School, and I find the commentary there accurate and thoughtful, and therefore useful to me. Some of their columns are more like legal op-eds, and I won't use those for a citation on a WP page, but I'm not going to limit my own reading to WP's RSs. And yes, there is such a thing as a "false statements trap." It's analogous to "perjury trap," except that it refers to false statements not made under oath but where it's nonetheless illegal to knowingly make false statements (e.g., in an FBI interview). Many people use "perjury trap" to refer to both. I find it useful to distinguish between them, given that the charge here was false statements, not perjury, and Flynn was never at risk of being charged with perjury for the FBI interview since he wasn't under oath. I can point you to lawyers (e.g., Ken White) who make this distinction. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC) FactOrOpinion - I'm sure there is more that you and I agree on than disagree on. And, no matter how much you disagree, this is the fact: The DOJ has never filed anything with the court claiming Flynn is victim of "perjury trap." It seems you did not bother to read the NYT link I sent or you would have known that Gleeson's court filing was within that article. I read both his brief and NYT report on it, but I do thank you for your very wise advise telling me I'd be "better off" reading only the brief "instead of NYT report on it." Can you point me to where Gleeson says the 'DOJ filing says "perjury trap"' because I can't find that in his brief. The only thing that I find Gleeson says about "perjury" is when Gleeson talks about whether Flynn should "be held in criminal contempt for committing perjury" in court, then says "Flynn has indeed committed perjury in these proceedings, for which he deserves punishment," then says, "There is also ample evidence that Flynn’s perjury obstructed the administration of justice." I read Marty's blog post you linked and I notice he admits he got a lot wrong about the FBI interview and that could be because, as Marty admits, "This isn’t my area of expertise—not by a longshot. I’ve never been involved in a counterintelligence investigation nor an FBI witness interview." IMO for any lawyer, Marty Lederman, to make the "perjury trap" claim about the suspect (Flynn) who was not under oath, is not only legally wrong, but sounds nutty. He might be a good lawyer, but even good lawyers can be very wrong at times. Also, any lawyer making the claim that "perjury" (18 USC 1621) is equal to a "false statement" (18 USC 1001) is not only legally wrong, but sounds nutty. For starters, one is under oath & one isn't. That'd be like saying walking equals running. Nope, not the same. I find it interesting that you say you agree with both Gleeson & Marty when they both say two completely different things. Gleeson, who has decades experience working with FBI & FBI interviews, says nothing about "perjury trap" whereas Marty, who has zero (0) experience with the FBI says some "perjury trap" nonsense about about a man, Flynn, who was not under oath. None of this is a slight on you. You strike me as a fine, hardworking person so please don't take it so personal, if/when I disagree with you or if/when I disagree someone you quote. Disagreeing is not a personal thing. Above you spoke of "counterproductive." If you want to keep chasing Bill Barr's red-herring, I could not care any less - I'm pretty sure that was Barr's goal all along - get people to chase his little red-herring so they stop focusing on the very serious crimes Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to so that he (Barr) can get away with his “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” [25]. But for me, I have more constructive things do than to chase Bill Barr's red-herrings. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC) BetsyRMadison -- Re: "The DOJ has never filed anything with the court claiming Flynn is victim of 'perjury trap,'" I agree. I never asserted it had. In our discussion here, I said that the filing *implied* (not "claimed") that Flynn is victim of "false statements trap." "Imply" and "claim" aren't synonyms. I originally failed to make that distinction on the Talk page, but did add an edit there as well ("edit: and also the difference between an explicit 'claim,' which doesn't appear, versus an implication"). I did read the NYT article, and I saw the link to Gleeson's brief. I did not say that you should "read[] only the brief 'instead of NYT report on it,'" but that you'd be better off "focusing on" the former. Here again, "reading" and "focusing on" aren't synonyms. One can read both but still focus on one more than the other. I never claimed or implied that "Gleeson says the 'DOJ filing says "perjury trap,"'" so I don't know why you're asking me to show that. I agree that he didn't say that. Re: "IMO for any lawyer, Marty Lederman, to make the "perjury trap" claim about the suspect (Flynn) who was not under oath, is not only legally wrong, but sounds nutty," he didn't claim that it was a perjury trap (quite the opposite, he argues that Flynn's lies were material). He did claim that the DOJ insinuated it was a perjury trap in their filing, and he did it in a paragraph where he mentions Barr's claim that the FBI was "trying to ... lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.”. We can distinguish between Lederman's own beliefs about it vs. how he interpreted the DOJ's claims in its motion to dismiss. I agree re: the difference between perjury and false statements, but I also know that the phrase "perjury trap" is widely used and the phrase "false statements trap" is not (per internet search results on quoted queries for the two phrases, where the results for the former are >2 orders of magnitude larger), and it doesn't surprise me that many people use the former phrase when they're talking about the latter, even when they're well aware of the difference. I don't think I'm chasing Barr's red-herring. I'm familiar with the "Firehose of Falsehood" propaganda model. But for better or worse, he's the A.G., and it's a fact that he said what he said. One can acknowledge that he made the claim without agreeing that his claim is true. Encyclopedias sometimes include discussions of notable false claims/beliefs (e.g., pseudoscience). And of course you don't have to be the one to address Barr's claim. Last but not least, I appreciate your comment about disagreeing, and as long as people are aiming for civil, sincere, and honest discussion (which I think you are), I'm fine with disagreement (and clearly I disagree with some of your interpretations) FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC) @BetsyRMadison and FactOrOpinion: FYI. Since both of you are relatively new editors, I thought I should inform you that discussions about the content of an article should generally go on the article talk page. However, I do think that BetsyRMadison was wise to make the initial allegation of misrepresentation of sources here (which goes towards editor behavior) rather than in the article. I can see how that leads to more discussion here. I haven't read all of the above, so I have no opinion about whether the allegation has merit or not and how much might belong on the talk page. I just wanted to make sure you understand that if you start discussing article content, then make sure that part of the discussion is on the talk page. If you both still disagree and you think it will affect what edits you propose to make to the article, I would make statements at the article about your different opinions, so editors will not have to look here. If I had come across an issue like that, I do tend to try to keep the disagreement about what the source says and does not say on talk page, but tone it down using WP:AGF and avoid discussing the editor's behavior as much as possible--focusing more on content. For example, if the editor misrepresented the source in an edit, rather than telling the editor it's wrong and needs to be corrected, I would simply revert with edit summary: "the source does not say...", and possibly open up talk page section saying the same thing and elaborating, but pinging the editor who made the edit on the talk page to invite their disagreement. If the misrepresentation occurred on the article talk page discussion, I would just quote the content the editor mentioned and say "This is not in the source. The source says:....". These methods avoid having to accuse the editor of lying. I am not opposed to politely asking editors to strike misleading comments if they are going to confuse other editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC) In the section above you said: Re: your suggestion below about reverting a change, the change was never made on the article page; we were discussing possible text for the article, as there had been an RfC and people were trying to reach consensus about the text. I haven't created permalinks before; I'll look that up and get back to you if there's something I don't understand. Thanks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Okay thanks for letting me know. For permanent links, see Help:Permanent_link (and also WP:OLDID). --David Tornheim (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC) As I said above. I'll just put in the links, and we can drop the discussion. The permalink will not clutter the page--it's just a link, not the entire discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I refered to the above discussion here: Talk:Michael_Flynn#Further_discussion_re_"perjury_trap" (peramlink) --David Tornheim (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

US v. Flynn

Exciting to be working on this with you! We can learn the ropes of Law Wikipedia together. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

JapanOfGreenGables - I, too, am glad to have others to work with and an interesting context for learning more about Wikipedia, both the law-specific elements and about WP editing and culture. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on expanding the pages for Legal realism and Public law. I'd love to work with you again if either of these are of interest to you! JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style -- Legal

Please read MOS:LEGAL. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

David Tornheim - Thanks for this helpful link, which also introduced me to the more general MOS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft U.S. v Flynn talk page

FYI. I responded to a number of your comments (and the other editor's) about the WP:RS list. I interspersed them so I provided the this diff so it's easy to read them all at once. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion I responded here also.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this, I disagree that there is a problem. Already too much text and time has been expended on the part of multiple editors over something fairly minor. I thought it would be quickly be solved by my post of the links, and we could all move on to other more important things. I prefer not to continue to discuss it. If you feel there are unanswered questions regarding this or why you believe there were defects with my or your permalinks, can you please ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE? I'm happy to continue the discussion on the Draft Flynn page. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've read your comments. I have been discussing the issues on the Talk page. I appreciate your comments and suggestions. I've got a hell of a busy weekend before me, but I'll try to review the two articles thoroughly and get back to you. I expect you've put significant time on editing the case article over the past two months and am looking forward to reading it. Activist (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I've got to leave the computer for a day or two, probably, but thanks for the input. What, if anything, do you think needs to stay in the case section on Flynn's article, and what do you think might be usefully moved to the case page or should be duplicated on both pages? I suspect when someone gets around to writing a book about Flynn, this will get considerable coverage. Activist (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, FactOrOpinion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Where to post question re: intersection of WP:SPS, WP:BLP, legal cases, and legal fora as sources

@David Tornheim:, @Mathglot: I posted a question to the WikiProject Law talk page [26], but as I've continued to investigate on my own (e.g., looking up/reading some archives of related discussions), I've realized that that isn't really my question. Now that I'm getting a better handle on what my actual questions are, I'm uncertain where to post them.

I'll try to articulate the questions, which are about the intersection of a few different WP guidelines -- WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:SPS -- and legal cases/commentary. Quoting from a couple of WP pages and italicizing some of the text for emphasis: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources says “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” Legal cases like US v. Flynn aren't biographical pages, but the discussion sometimes involves living people (e.g., Flynn), and WP:BLP says "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Since lots of legal cases involve living people, I assume that the SPS policy sometimes applies to text in articles about legal cases. Is that correct?

My questions focus on online legal fora written by experts, which can be WP:RS in certain circumstances. Some of these self-identify as blogs (e.g., SCOTUSblog); others don't (e.g., Just Security). Depending on whether the text is factual vs. legal commentary, they might be used as a reference for factual claims (in WP's voice) or as a reference for opinions (written in the voice of the author, not WP's voice). But since WP:SPS can't be used for WP:BLP, it's important to figure out (1) whether a given online legal forum is/isn't a WP:SPS and (2) whether the claim it would be a citation for on the case page is/isn't a claim that WP:BLP applies to. For example, commentary from the online legal forum Just Security can be used for US v. Flynn if (a) the author has expertise for the claim and (b) Just Security isn't considered self-published and/or if the claim isn't a BLP claim, but can't be used if (c) it's a BLP claim and Just Security is considered a SPS. The thing is: it's not always clear to me how to determine (1) and (2). This issue isn't limited to Just Security or US v. Flynn; it applies to material from varied online legal fora that might be used to support claims about legal cases involving living people. These fora aren't newspaper blogs (which aren't considered SPS); some of the fora are clearly SPS (e.g., emptywheel), but others aren't necessarily SPS (e.g., they have editorial boards).

I'd actually like to understand (1) how do you determine whether a given source is/isn't a WP:SPS when it's not clear-cut?, and (2) how do you determine when a claim about a legal case involving a living person crosses into WP:BLP vs. not? Do my questions make sense? I can add a bit more info about some related discussions that I found in the WP:RSN and WP:V archives if that's helpful. I've found more addressing issue (1) than issue (2) -- maybe just an artifact of my search terms, I don't know. But I'd first like help figuring out where's the best place to post the questions. I'd rather post both to the same place, since they're intertwined, but if it's really better to post them to different places, I can do that. I don't think it makes sense to post the discussion to the talk page of the draft for US v Flynn, as the issue isn't specific to that case, even though that's the context in which my questions arose. Do I post them to WP:RSN? (probably not, as I'm not worried about whether they're sometimes reliable), Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability? Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons? someplace else? Once I get an answer elsewhere, I'll report back to the US v Flynn talk page.

Three examples of why I'm sometimes having a hard time determining whether specific online legal fora are a SPS:

• “Just Security [27] is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security [RCLS] at New York University School of Law,” is “editorially-independent” of RCLS, and has a large editorial board of experts (see the masthead: [28]). Some of the editors work at NYU and others of don't; some (maybe all) of the editors sometimes publish articles there. It also has an advisory board: [29].
• Lawfare [30] is “Published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with Brookings.” The Lawfare Institute and Brookings are both 501(c)(3)s, and the former only exists to support the blog. It has multiple editors: [31]; some are at Lawfare/Brookings, some are faculty at law schools and/or associated with other non-profits such as the Hoover Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations. The editors sometimes publish their own articles; other times they publish work by others.
• SCOTUSblog [32] strikes me as self-published for the primary staff. But they also publish work by diverse other legal scholars (e.g,. in sponsored symposia), and I'm wondering if it becomes more like an outside publisher at that point.

Thanks. Apologies that I'm so wordy. It's hard for me to be more compact when I'm still getting hold of what my questions are, and as the quip goes, I haven't had time to make it shorter [33]. And David, after the exchange re: BetsyRMadison's and my exchanges belonging on the Flynn talk page, I do understand that this doesn't really belong on my talk page, but I just don't know where it does go; my intention is to condense it and post it somewhere appropriate. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: Might I suggest you reduce the length of your questions like this? When I see something this long, I feel overwhelmed and wonder if I have the patience to read the entire thing. Less is more. If you have more than one unique question, you can make a numbered list or separate post where we can respond directly under each unique post. The separate posts could all be in the same section. See for example, this question I asked: Wikipedia_talk:Splitting#Closing_a_split_discussion. That took a long time to write, because I focussed on making it as simple as possible for the facts that I wanted to show. Editors are more likely to respond if it is easy to read. The responses show even more brevity. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologized for the length in the last paragraph, as it's hard for me to be compact when I'm still making sense of something. But I'll try.

Where is a good place for me to ask more about this pair of questions:

(1) how to determine whether an online legal forum is/isn't WP:SPS, and

(2) how to determine whether WP:BLP applies to particular text on a legal case page (or is that judgment made at the page level and not the sentence level)?

Why I'm asking: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources says “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert... Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” Legal cases like aren't biographical pages, but the discussion sometimes involves living people (e.g., the defendant), and WP:BLP says "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Since lots of legal cases involve living people, I assume that the SPS policy sometimes applies to text in articles about legal cases. Is that correct?

Some online legal fora (e.g., SCOTUSblog, Just Security, Lawfare, The Volokh Conspiracy) are written by experts and so might be RSs for some kinds of claims. But for some of them it's unclear whether they're WP:SPS. If they are, and if WP:BLP sometimes applies in the page for a legal case, then those online legal fora can't be used as citations for those claims.

I gave 3 examples of specific online legal fora to give a sense of why the SPS question sometimes isn't clear, but I'll skip that for now. I did try looking up info in some of the archived discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability and WP:RSN, but it didn't really answer my questions.

Hope this is short enough. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) how to determine whether an online legal forum is/isn't WP:SPS

If it were me, and I couldn't figure it out myself, I would ask at WP:RS/N.

To determine if SPS, do things like this:

(1) Google the entity -- see what you can learn about it.

(2) If it has wiki article, it is likely to give you solid clues about whether it is SPS.

(3) Click around the site. Look for pages like these:

(a) Contact us

(b) About

(c) Mission Statement

(d) Editorial board

In my mind, what is key to the difference between an SPS is whether there is at least one editor--ideally someone with editorial, journalistic, or literary experience--who oversees the work with a dispassionate ability to delete biased and factually questionable proposed submissions. Someone who will reject and revise submissions rather than just publish whatever is sent to them. (contrast with Predatory publishing).

Keep in mind, nearly everything published (including Internet), has some kind of "paper trail" leading back to the owner. From looking for the owner of the site, you learn a lot about how the owner manages the site.

Sometimes, it's easy to tell, but there are often borderline cases, which is when you go to WP:RS/N.

I usually presume that if the site makes it hard to find its editorial standards or editorial board, that it has none, and is SPS. But I'm sure there are counter-examples.

--David Tornheim (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'm already familiar with these fora. Lawfare and Just Security have sizeable editorial boards, but the editors also post articles, and the sites aren't clear re: whether/how the editor-written articles get approved and edited. SCOTUSblog has no identified editorial board and much of the content is published by the expert owners and assistants (and the site has a great track record for reliability and neutrality), but it also sponsors symposia with many outside scholars, and I suspect that the owners act as editors for that content. Each feels like a mix of SPS and not. They're all scholarly/careful. But so are some legal blogs that are more clearly self-published, like emptywheel and Volokh Conspiracy. I'll post my question to RSN. Thanks again for your time and patience. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: I've only skimmed, not read through, and will come back later (ping me if I forget). First,some housekeepking: please don't use <br>, it screws up syntax highlighting. Either use <br/>, or even better, {{br}}. However, in all the cases where you used it, a blank line is sufficient. If you want extra white space between paragraphs (not recommended), just add two blank lines.

Now, about SPS, RS, and all that (here's where I only skimmed): first, a caveat: my opinions are only my own. Having said that, use your best judgment, in the first instance. If you make a glaring mistake, someone will fix it (hopefully). As far as expert opinion, someone like Juan Cole, when talking about Middle East Issues at Informed Comment, is definitely an expert, for example. Medium.com, for example, is an anybody-can-publish site, but some people who publish there are experts in their subject matter, most are not. When it's not clear cut, you can always raise an issue about a specific source on the article Talk page, and it's always worth searching the archives at WP:RSN to see if someone asked your question before, or you can raise a new one to see what they think. Haven't read David's response, or your 2nd one, hope I idn't duplicate anything. That's it for now, Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks. I think you misunderstood. I'm not asking about US v Flynn or RSs really, but about where to post a questions re: determining (1) whether legal blogs/fora are SPSs when this isn't clear, and (2) whether legal cases involving living people require WP:BLP standards; these two interact, as one can't use a SPS as a reference for a claim that falls under BLP. If that's now too cryptic, read my response to David, which adds a bit more. Don't bother with the long initial post unless you want to. I did already search some archives for answers but didn't find anything clear. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Before posting, you should check archives at RSN, and if you didn't find anything, then post your question about whether the blog is a RS at WP:RSN. Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether they're RSs (they are, as long as they're applied in contexts where the authors do have expertise, though text might need to be in the author's voice). The issue is whether they're self-published, because the rules say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, ...,” and WP:BLP says the BLP policy also "applies ... to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages," which implies that we may need to beware of using the blogs on the US v. Flynn page (and ditto with living people in other cases). I did already search the archives at RSN and found some related entries but no clear answer. But I see that David agrees with you about asking at RSN, so I'll do that. Based on the RSN description, I'd thought that the focus there is more on whether the source is reliable, but if they also help with SPS assessments, that's great. Thanks again, and sorry that I wasn't clear enough initially. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see my answer in the section below.

If you post at WP:RS/N, make sure to present everything you found, and keep your own commentary about your read to a minimum. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim:, @Mathglot: Just a heads up that I revised and posted my questions to WP:RSN: [34]. It's still long, mostly to include all of the relevant background (links to the discussions here and at WikiProject Law, links to what I found in the archives, info about the 3 sites where I'm uncertain if they're SPS). One editor has responded already, and that response underscores for me that WP's SPS definition needs work. David, you suggested that I also post a note about the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard). I haven't done that yet, but will. I want to thank both of you again for the myriad kinds of support that you've provided as I'm learning about all of WP's norms, how/where to seek input, etc., and for your patience with my wordiness and periodic mistakes. There's a lot to learn, and I really appreciate your help. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I ended up deciding to post the note on the BLP talk page (here: [35]) rather than the Noticeboard, as my question is more about the BLPSPS guideline than about a specific article. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion Glad you are getting the answers. Unfortunately, because of crowdsourcing for policy, for cases like these, sometimes Wikipedia has a gray area, double-standards, bizarre contradictions, etc., that are in places you might not have even considered. If you are seeking a clear and final way to understand these gray areas in a definitive interpretation by an editor or panel of authority, it can be nearly impossible.

The purpose of the noticeboard discussions is to seek help from a wide group of experienced editors, who might be more familiar with the seeming contradictions. As you can see, even experienced editors may still disagree.

I think one of the challenges you faced was that your instinct that ScotusBlog is WP:RS was correct all along, but you got big pushback that probably was unwarranted, and so you were cautious. The fact that it is called a "blog", probably gives some wiki editors the wrong idea that it is not WP:RS. Based on the posts at WP:RS/N, I think you can see your instincts were right. Working in the area of law, I think most laypeople don't realize just how carefully regulated attorney's published opinions are and that a J.D. means "doctor of jurisprudence". --David Tornheim (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The site that first got me thinking about all of this was actually Just Security, as I'd mentioned a Just Security article about US v. Flynn in my discussion with BetsyRMadison above, and she had dismissed the author (a Georgetown law prof. and former Deputy Assistant A.G. in the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ) as a "blogger" and later claimed on her talk page that "'Just Security' is a blog where anyone can write & it's certainly not a RS." It seems like the consensus is that for all three of the online legal fora I mentioned here, their material can be RSOPINION or RSFACT (depending on the particulars, consistent with my views about them), and none is considered SPS (which I was less certain about). I'll see about adding SCOTUSblog, at least, to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Thanks for the additional info about Noticeboards vs. talk pages. Re: attorneys' published opinions, rest assured that they can be very sloppy (Jonathan Turley's Wordpress blog comes to mind; despite being a GWU law prof. who has been an expert congressional witness -- for ex., for the GOP in the impeachment hearings -- his columns are riddled with typos, factual errors, ...; that's an example where I do consider it a personal blog and SPS). I'm OK with there being gray areas, but I now think that a couple of guideline pages can be improved a bit, and at some point I'll try to post a brief note to them with a link to the RS/N discussion. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say in the above.

but I now think that a couple of guideline pages can be improved a bit...

What you can do is post a proposed change to the page, and see what people say. Sometimes or often WP:RfCs are used to make substantial changes or additions to policy. Also, sometimes, policies get separate little fiefdoms. For example, I believe originally WP:GNG was the main guideline for notability; consider this version from 2005. Now, it has been broken down into things like WP:NSPORTS, WP:NACTOR, and the most amazing of all notability rules WP:NOLYMPICS that says anyone who competed in the Olympics is notable. I find that ridiculous, and so we have so many articles on people who were part of some sports team that competed in the Olympics years ago and did nothing else in their lives mentioned in WP:RS.

My point with that is that the issues you are bringing up are very focused on WP:RS in law. You probably weren't aware of WP:MUSIC/SOURCES a separate fiefdom of rules about sources related to music. There is also WP:MEDRS. I think legal sources deserve such a list, rather than putting it in WP:RSP. Maybe there is one already.

I'll see about adding SCOTUSblog, at least, to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.

Please keep in mind: (1) this list is very recent dating only to 2018 (2) that there has been a movement as sources are rapidly added to WP:RS/P (3) there is also significant opposition that goes back to Wikipedia's inception. I believe such a list was proposed long ago, and for reasons that have become only too clear now, there are significant problems with having this list. Hopefully, someone will (or has written) an essay that explains the serious problems with this list. Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_1#This_seems_a_bad_idea is the first one I found.

Lately, new entries to the list have been started by WP:RfCs. These RfC's can be incredibly superficial. I have objected to several of them, and others have joined me. An obvious problem of declaring a particular publication "generally reliable" or "generally unreliable" is that the reliability of any particular published article depends significantly on the author(s) and subject of the article, whether it is opinion or carefully researched material, whether it is repetition of political propaganda and talking points or other "political purposes", whether it is advocacy, or the author has a conflict of interest on the particular subject. Noam Chomsky has has researched into the serious problems of bias and pro-government material with some of the most reputable publications such as the New York Times. (see Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Corporate_bias_and_power_bias) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. the plural of forum in English is forums, not fora. See [36]. I have a book that gives a list of the many latin terms that use the non-latin plural or where either is okay (e.g. indexes or indices). Although we often talk about "data", we rarely use the latin singular "datum" and instead say something like a "data point".[37]. (See also Data (word)) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Q2 Re "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

To be honest, I was surprised to read that. I'm pretty sure I could find a number of violations of this rule on Wikipedia. I believe the purpose of this line it to prevent the inclusion of defamatory (or promotional WP:PROMO) material that might be unrelated to the author's expertise in the field, which might be motivated by friendship, solidarity or antipathy for the subject. For example, a Supreme Court justice might say, "I worked with X many ago at a law firm. S/he is a great attorney with integrity, who will make a fine president." This kind of endorsement would really need to be published in a non-SPS to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia IMHO. For your case commentary about the case is quite different than opinions about the person.

If a legal expert comments on the case, I think that would be acceptable even from an SPS. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Thanks. If it weren't for that line, there wouldn't be a problem, as these particular legal fora all have sufficiently expert contributors to be RSs (sometimes only in the author's voice, sometimes in WP's voice, depending on the specifics of an article). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

SPS is out, because of how strict WP:BLP is. Whereas for example, unsourced assertions are littered over millions of articles at Wikipedia, some tagged with {{citation needed}}, some not, and there's no urgency about rectifying them, that is not at all the case with articles about, or touching upon, living persons. Unsourced material can be removed immediately As WP:BLP says near the top, any contentious material (even positive), "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." When in doubt in a BLP article, if you see something you don't agree with, then by definition it's contentious; remove it, ask your question about whether it should be removed later. If you place "..per WP:BLPREMOVE" in the edit summary, even if it turns out in the end that you were mistaken, and the material was true but simply not sourced, you're still in the right to remove it, and you will never get criticized for it by an admin or an experienced user. The thing about an SPS is, by definition it is unreliable--there are no fact-checkers, the blog owner can post content themself with no other eyes ever editing or checking it. That is an unreliable source. Note that, "unreliable source" does not mean "inaccurate", "inexpert", "unusable at Wikipedia", or "biased". But it does mean you can't use it in a BLP. Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:Thanks, in this case "the blog owner can post content themself with no other eyes ever editing or checking it" is part of what I'm questioning. In an online legal forum like Just Security, which doesn't self-identify as a blog and which has a bunch of editors, it's not clear to me whether an editor can post without the article first being reviewed by another editor; also, many of the articles aren't written by editors, but are instead submitted and either rejected or accepted/revised via editorial review. FWIW, SCOTUSblog is cited hundreds of times on WP for SCOTUS cases. If a legal case page is considered BLP whenever the plaintiff or defendant is a living individual, then "Blogs are SPS and are out per BLPSPS" (quoting your edit summary) would make those unacceptable. I'll work on figuring out how to post my questions clearly and succinctly at RSN, hopefully later today, and will add some of what I found in the archives. Thanks again, the exchange with you and David has been very helpful. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion:, I see, yes, that doesn't sound like your typical "blog" and may have editors, fact-checkers, and so on. Sounds legit (especially if all the other cases rely on it) but if you still have doubts, no harm in raising it at WP:RSN. For one thing, a thumbs-up opinion there would give it an imprimatur covering not only your use of it, but all the other articles that use it already, which would be a service. Thanks for being so diligent about upholding WP:Verifiability; that a very good thing for the encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

When bringing over French text, what about the refs?

Hi, FactOrOpinion, I decided to respond here to the question about foreign references that you posed at the discussion on my TP about the French history topic, because it's a more general question that you might like to refer to again at some point, so here is a better venue for that. You said,

• "Am I correct in assuming that if I copy/translate some French text, I'd need to find English substitutes for the French references?"

The quick answer, is "no". It's more important for the article to have some source, than no source; if equivalent sources in English can be found, they can always be added later. So, you don't have to find an English one. Policy page WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources says "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred." This actually flows naturally from core requirement of Verifiability policy, which is that all assertions are verifiable, but not that it necessarily be easy to do so (i.e., in English, on the web). So, you can bring the references over in French, at least for starters. (If they use the any of the series of {{Citation}} templates, like {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, and so on, they you should add |lang=fr to the template, if the source was in French. If the reference is plain text, then add "(in French)" in parentheses after copying it over.) If the reference contains a citation in French in quotation marks (French uses guillemets), don't translate it, unless you're confident about your language ability; in no case use online translators; let someone else do it in that case.

P.S. I just noticed you had a couple of conversations above that got kind of long, and out of hand in some places. Per WP:OWNTALK, you can do pretty much what you want with this page, and if you want to collapse material, archive it, or even remove it, you can. I archive my page manually, when I feel like, but automatic archiving is also available. Manual archiving is easy: just create a user sub-page called User talk:FactOrOpinion/Archive 1, move whatever discussions you want over there, stick {{tan}} at the top of the page (or use one of the other Archive templates), and save. If you add {{Talk header}} to the top of *this* page, it will create a box with links to all your archive pages, and a search box. Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for the info about both the citations and collapsing / archiving. I'd left the conversations above because David Tornheim had linked to them from the Flynn talk page, as they contain some content relevant to that, and even though he also posted permalinks along with the live links, I figured I'd just leave them. But it's good to learn that I can collapse them, and maybe I'll archive anyway since David included the permalinks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Teahouse thread (re: edit warring from IP user) has been archived

Your Teahouse thread (re: edit warring from IP user) has been archived Hi FactOrOpinion! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, edit warring from someone using two IP addresses, unsure how to report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Teahouse thread (re: CWW with further editing) has been archived

Your Teahouse thread (re: CWW with further editing) has been archived Hi FactOrOpinion! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, When WP:CWW but further editing the copied content, do I need to use different edits for CWW vs. further editing, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Teahouse thread (re: possible disruptive talk page editing from IP user) has been archived

Your thread has been archived Hi FactOrOpinion! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Second opinion wanted re: possible disruptive talk page editing from IP user, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Teahouse thread (re: creating a disambiguation page vs. adding a hatnote for "US v. Stone") has been archived

Your thread has been archived Hi FactOrOpinion! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Editing a redirect to create a disambiguation page vs. adding a hatnote for "United States v. Stone", has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes

Hi, FactOrOpinion, somewhere you asked me about multiple infoboxes on a page, and I believe I said that it wasn't recommended or usual or something, I don't remember (if you know where the discussion is, can you link it here?). If I said that in a way that sounded black-and-white, I wanted to revise that. First of all, guidelines are just that, and if using multiple Infoboxes would uphold Wikipedia policies better than not using them, or if it somehow otherwise improves the article for the user, then I would say, go ahead and use them. I had your question in the back of my mind, while working on Draft:Government of Vichy France, and in fact, added multiple Infoboxes there, where I think the parallel structure, and short vertical height of the boxes add, rather than detract, from the article. In the end, it will be up to other editors to see whether the boxes remain, or not; so in a sense, consensus is the ultimate arbiter on questions like this. Anyway, if I said in my previous response anything categorical, like "never do this", then I wanted to amend that to something more like, "this is not usually done", but I just went against the usual pattern, and did it. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, here's the link to my question about infoboxes and your response: [38]. I apologize that I still haven't contributed to the Liberation of France draft. It just seemed that Elinruby and Rjensen were doing a lot of editing initially, and they are knowledgeable about this content and experienced editors, whereas I'm not, and I thought it would be wiser for me to wait and then pitch in later. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. You never have to apologize for not doing something here, it's a volunteer project. I'm happy for whatever you do do to improve the encyclopedia, in whatever corner of it that interests you. Mathglot (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Watchlists

Watchlisting a section

At Talk:United States v. Flynn#Closing the split discussion @13:43, 8 July, you wrote,

one other question re: watchlists. I don't see any way to watchlist only a section of a page rather than the entire page (what I mentioned earlier re: "whether I can limit notifications to edits of a specific section of the Talk page"). Is this possible?

Often asked for on en-wiki, but so far, no. But some Wikipedias (fr-wiki) and sister projects (Wikimedia) have it. Here are some resources to check out about that:

• MediaWiki:Topic on User talk:Levivich#Section watchlisting
• MediaWiki:Topic on Talk:Watchlist wishlist/Archive 1#watching a specific section
• mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 1 report#Watchlist
• Phabricator: T2738 Ability to watch section levels of pages

And this page: mw:Talk pages project – it doesn't talk about it, but is probably the place to raise your question, if you want to take it up with them. The software is run by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which hosts Wikipedia, so watchlisting sections is probably a software change; the website of Wikimedia, is MediaWiki(.org). The linked article is the place to go to ask about watchlisting sections, or at least the place to ask where to go. Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for the info about existing discussions re: watchlisting a section. (Peripherally related re: WMF, I went to an edit-a-thon last year that was led by someone who works for WMF, and I had a brief exchange with her this year when I was trying to learn whether anyone had set up a wiki for sharing COVID-19 info that doesn't belong on WP, as there had been a lot of discussion on a local listserv about food resources, mask-making, etc., and I was interested in making it easier for people in my county to share info. She referred me to a site that an experienced editor had set up as an experiment, [39], but at that point, I was too inexperienced an editor to even know that I was supposed to sign the comment I'd left on his talk page, and it looks like he ultimately decided to use a different platform for his plan. I should actually go back to that site and drop him a note now that I understand a bit more about editing.) -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Watching fast-moving pages

You also asked,

I'm asking because I'd like to be able to add something to my watchlist from the RS/N discussion that I started, but the RS/N page gets so much discussion that if I watchlist the entire page, the list of edits from that page overwhelms the rest of my watchlist. How do you manage your own watchlist so that you're able to see what's helpful but not have it feel overwhelming?

I'm not sure what you mean. Doesn't it bunch all the edits from RS/N into a single entry? For example, I get WP:ANI near the top of my Watchlist, but right now there are 33 edits from 12 editors and it wraps onto 3 lines, but that's it. That's only a tiny, tiny percentage of the vertical height of the page, which is 18 pages (screensful) in my browser, with my settings requesting the last 800 changes in the past 14 days. So, what do you mean, it "overwhelms the rest" of your watchlist? Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: No, my watchlist doesn't bunch edits together. Each edit is on a separate line, listed in reverse chronological order. For example, here's what it looks like for a subset of 5 comments, including your comments here today (but on my actual watchlist, much of this text is hyperlinked):

(diff | hist)..Wikipedia talk:Verifiability‎; 10:45..(+261)..North8000 (talk | contribs)..(→‎Let's define self-published sources: +cmt)

(diff | hist)..User talk:FactOrOpinion‎; 09:37..(+1,009)..Mathglot (talk | contribs)..(→‎Watchlisting a section: About fastmoving pages like RSN ovewhelming your list.)

(diff | hist)..User talk:FactOrOpinion;‎ 09:26..(+63)‎..Mathglot (talk | contribs)‎..(→‎Watchlisting a section: Add one)

(diff | hist)..User talk:FactOrOpinion;‎ 09:23..(+1,419)..Mathglot (talk | contribs)..(→‎Watchlisting a section: Some sister projects have it, but en-wiki doesn't.)

(diff | hist)..Wikipedia talk:Verifiability;‎ 08:19..(+334)..Newslinger (talk | contribs)..(→‎Let's define self-published sources: Prefer Masem's)

So you can see that the 2 edits to the WP:V talk page are separated because your edits here came in between time-wise. I looked to see whether this is a matter of how I have my preferences set up, but didn't see any option that allows me to group edits by watched page. So what I meant earlier is that if I add RS/N to my watchlist, the plurality and perhaps majority of the edits listed on my watchlist will come from that one page (I'm not watching that many pages, and the rest get many fewer edits), all interspersed in reverse chronological order, making it harder for me to keep track of edits on other pages in my list. It's OK, I dealt with that by simply visiting the RS/N periodically to see whether there was anything new posted to the section I'd started. But if there are other preferences available for watchlists that would be good for me to know about, I'd appreciate your letting me know. And thanks again for your general willingness to take time to my answer questions. You're always patient and encouraging. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

hmm... I get them all nicely bunched, with a little, right-facing triangle, that if I click, expands the list into all the edits on that page:

Here's how it looks, in default, collapsed state:

excerpt from my default watchlist

August 2, 2020 • ▶ 20:44 Talk:Germania‎‎ 3 changes history +2,042‎ [Sechinsic‎; Llywrch‎; Andrew Lancaster‎] • ▶ 20:43 Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard‎‎ 10 changes history +3,602‎ [Lee Vilenski‎; Bri‎; Behrouz.lawyer‎; 331dot‎; Tenryuu‎ (2×); Ed6767‎ (4×)] • ▶ 20:43 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎‎ 119 changes history +55,272‎ [WanderingWanda‎; TransporterMan‎; Lilipo25‎; Bring back Daz Sampson‎; NinjaRobotPirate‎; QEDK‎; QueerEcofeminist‎; Reyk‎; Boleyn‎; Rosguill‎; Autumnking2012‎; Andrew Davidson‎; 331dot‎; TomStar81‎; ජපස‎; GreenC‎; Cyphoidbomb‎ (2×); Girth Summit‎ (2×); GorillaWarfare‎ (2×); Guy Macon‎ (2×); HAL333‎ (2×); ThatMontrealIP‎ (2×); Sitush‎ (2×); RickinBaltimore‎ (2×); LucasGeorge‎ (2×); Newimpartial‎ (2×); Kbabej‎ (3×); 7&6=thirteen‎ (3×); Dimadick‎ (3×); Serial Number 54129‎ (4×); Cardiffbear88‎ (4×); Darkknight2149‎ (4×); DonQuixote‎ (4×); Nulted‎ (4×); Levivich‎ (5×); Crossroads‎ (6×); Lightburst‎ (8×); Deacon Vorbis‎ (10×); Toughpigs‎ (11×); AlejandroLeloirRey‎ (14×)]

And here's how it changes, if I click the first triangle:

excerpt from watchlist, with one item expanded

• ▼ 20:44 Talk:Germania‎‎ 3 changes history +2,042‎ [Sechinsic‎; Llywrch‎; Andrew Lancaster‎] 20:44 (cur | prev) +732‎ Llywrch talk contribs response rollback 17:50 (cur | prev) +325‎ Andrew Lancaster talk contribs →‎A toponym 11:31 (cur | prev) +985‎ Sechinsic talk contribs →‎A toponym • ▶ 20:43 Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard‎‎ 10 changes history +3,602‎ [Lee Vilenski‎; Bri‎; Behrouz.lawyer‎; 331dot‎; Tenryuu‎ (2×); Ed6767‎ (4×)] • ▶ 20:43 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎‎ 119 changes history +55,272‎ [WanderingWanda‎; TransporterMan‎; Lilipo25‎; Bring back Daz Sampson‎; NinjaRobotPirate‎; QEDK‎; QueerEcofeminist‎; Reyk‎; Boleyn‎; Rosguill‎; Autumnking2012‎; Andrew Davidson‎; 331dot‎; TomStar81‎; ජපස‎; GreenC‎; Cyphoidbomb‎ (2×); Girth Summit‎ (2×); GorillaWarfare‎ (2×); Guy Macon‎ (2×); HAL333‎ (2×); ThatMontrealIP‎ (2×); Sitush‎ (2×); RickinBaltimore‎ (2×); LucasGeorge‎ (2×); Newimpartial‎ (2×); Kbabej‎ (3×); 7&6=thirteen‎ (3×); Dimadick‎ (3×); Serial Number 54129‎ (4×); Cardiffbear88‎ (4×); Darkknight2149‎ (4×); DonQuixote‎ (4×); Nulted‎ (4×); Levivich‎ (5×); Crossroads‎ (6×); Lightburst‎ (8×); Deacon Vorbis‎ (10×); Toughpigs‎ (11×); AlejandroLeloirRey‎ (14×)]

If you click the third one, it expands into a really long list. It looks like this format is the one you want; but I don't remember what I did to get it this way. Is there anything at WP:WATCHLIST? Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks, it's interesting to learn that a different display is possible. I looked at WP:WATCHLIST and don't see anything about it there, but that page then refers to more into at WP:CUSTOMWATCH, which in turn links to Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#Watchlist, so I'll explore some more. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I started thinking about whether I had a script enabled, too; but I don't see anything in my common.js; I'll have to look around. Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Or just go to the Tea House, and ask there; a link back here might help them. If they don't know, WP:VPT definitely will; but try TEA first. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Try this: go to: Preferences - Watchlist - Advanced Options - Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent, and see if that fixes it. Mathglot (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: That didn't work, but it prompted me to explore the Preferences more, and I found it under Recent changes - Advanced options - Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, great, glad you found it! Mathglot (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Culling after a split, when the OP has moved on

Hi, this is kind of an addendum to the comments at MF about the housekeeping after the split to USvF. In general, after a split copying material from A to B, one goes back to A to cut the material out of A, leaving only a summary (see WP:SS). That could be a 90% reduction in the section in A that was copied (depends of course on circumstances). If A remains stable after the copy, while not simple, at least it's straightforward. If the A section moves on, especially with expansion, it becomes more difficult. Here's one way to approach that.

I don't know if this will help make the next cull easier, but here's a technique I use, involving three windows. Because the MF article has moved on since the copy to USvF with a lot of new material added, including in the section you copied earlier, there are three diffs or permalinks of interest, now: 1. MF currently, i.e., the version you will be shortening; 2. USvF Diff at the time you added the material (the link in the summary), and 3. MF rev (permalink) at the time #2 happened. The cull now needs to come out of #1, but the addition at 2 happened when MF looked like 3, not 1. It might help you, to reminds yourself of how it looked then and what you did; you can do that by opening 2 and 3 in two side-by-side, tall, skinny windows, and scroll them independently to the same section, to line them up and see what you happened back then. It will make it easier to see what should be culled from 1 now, even though 1 has moved on.

Here's where the third window comes in. You can add a diff of 1 and 3 there, to see how the cull would have to happen now. If there isn't a lot of room for a third window, instead of a 1-3 diff, you can use a permalink to 1 and do a visual diff. Do you know the principle of a blink microscope? If you carefully line up two windows with almost the same text over each other, and then use the keyboard shortcut for alternating window focus between the last two windows (on my setup, it's ALT+Tab) very rapidly, it will swap the images of the two windows, and the changed text will jump out at you because of the way human perception works. To do this, place a permalink to 1 in the window, and lay it over #3 at the identical window height and width, scrolling 1 and 3 until the unchanged text matches. Now you can use your kb shortcut to swap, which will simultaneously show you what changed between 1 & 3, as well as comparing each of them to 2 in turn. Does this make sense? This works best for small changes; the slightly different position of Pluto against the identical fields of fixed stars on two plates, jumped out at Clyde Tombaugh when a blink microscope showed him both plates in rapid succession. If there had been hundreds of planets, it wouldn't have worked so well.

If you want to try this, the effect is startling. Open these two links in two windows: Special:permalink/967515794‎ and Special:permalink/967536392‎. Make sure the window sizes are identical. Scroll each one until the section header "Background" is right at the top border. Now, drag them so they are superimposed, exactly. Use your window swap shorcut (Alt+Tab on windows) to flip between them. You'll probably have to adjust one of the windows slightly; they have to be superimposed exactly, pixel for pixel, for this to work properly. Watch the "Background" section header, adjusting one of the windows, until the section title doesn't move at all when you swap between windows, it just flickers. Now, you're ready. Hit the shortcut key as fast as you can, so that the image you're looking at rapidly switches from one window to the other. Now let your eye focus go limp, sort of, and expand, so you're seeing the whole image. As the image flickers back and forth before you, your eye should be drawn to exactly what has changed on the page. That is the "blink microscope" effect.

I don't know if this will help in the MF - USvF split housekeeping case, because it depends on how far MF has moved on since the original copy to USvF, but it might. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on your comments at Talk:MF, I might've misread why the diff appeared to show added material; this whole section may be moot, wrt the MF->USvF case; but hopefully will help you some other time. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to spend time explaining things that may be helpful, and I wasn't familiar with a blink microscope, and it was interesting to learn about that. I looked up the images for Pluto: [40] Unrelated, this bit of science reminded me that I was curious about your name. Do you have an interest in math? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi FactOrOpinion! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Help needed using WikiBlame to identify editors and diffs in edit warring, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

University of California, Berkeley

FactOrOpinion, thank you for your recent thoughtful comments at Talk:University of California, Berkeley, such as this one: [41]. Attic Salt (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: I'm glad that it came across that way, and I appreciate your taking the time to drop me a note. I sometimes struggle with how to respond in a productive way, but that's certainly my goal. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 Wikipedia'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.

Doug Weller talk 14:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi FactOrOpinion! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Who to alert about a new article whose contents don't correspond to the title?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi FactOrOpinion! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is there a tool to help determine what pages people ultimately choose after using the search bar (context: Russia investigation)?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Landis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stuart Davis. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi FactOrOpinion! The thread you created at the Teahouse, checking whether an article has been PRODed before, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

A recent edit of yours to the page Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. The edit summary makes it sound like you're voicing your own opinion on ABC and CBS when you're just stating what Donald Trump has said on the subject. A better edit summary would be something like "Added that Donald Trump thinks ABC and CBS should lose their licenses and journalists should be jailed for not revealing sources." You're not in any trouble, just letting you know for the future. RteeeeKed💬📖 19:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

RteeeeKed, I would have thought that obvious, given that the section heading shown in the edit summary is about Trump's own "Statements against the media". FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice that, and many editors with very strong opinions tend to voice their complaints in the edit summary like that. Plus, it being in that section still doesn't make your edit look innocent. For the record, the edit itself was fine, it's just the edit summary I have an issue with, which can't be changed, so no real use in debating this further. RteeeeKed💬📖 01:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)