User talk:Cmilescody

May 2021

Hello, I'm RandomCanadian. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to List of coffee companies have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ken Paxton without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If they state something is false, then Wikipedia does, too. If the sources in the Ken Paxton article do not state that his claims are false, please discuss on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm cmilescody. I did not mean to remove any data. Thank you for restoring any missing information. I was merely adding to several uncited truth claims. I need to study more about how to make changes. Thanks for the head's up. Cmilescody (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you wish personally, but if the preponderance of independent reliable sources state that Donald Trump's claims about the 2020 election are false, then Wikipedia does, too. The same goes for the other things you had tagged. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not a belief I'm looking for, it's citation, or the neutrality [1] that Wikipedia can achieve. It's too valuable a resource to not follow its own guidelines. Insertions of the words "false" and "falsely" are truth claims, which is fine, if cited. That's all I'm trying to say. Cmilescody (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Please examine the existing sources that are provided; if they do not state that the claims of Trump or Paxton are false, please point that out on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Certainly. I will. I'm not referring to what Trump or Paxton said. I'm referring to what the author claimed three times in the article. You may not still have access to my edits, but the requests for citation were in reference to the author's claims. We're talking about Wikipedia, not politicians (unless the author is a politician, I guess). Cmilescody (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Articles do not typically have single authors, especially those about prominent public officials. This is a collective effort. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The author(s) made four uncredited (or erroneous) truth claims. The other 9 usages of "false" or "falsely" were citing claims made by others, which, if truly made, are totally legitimate.

These are the illegitimate claims:

• "Paxton's lawsuit included claims that had been tried unsuccessfully in other courts and shown to be false.[143]" [143] Refers to East Michigan US District Court judge rejecting the suit, not litigating it and proving its veracity.
• "Paxton falsely claimed that the rioters were liberal activists posing as Trump supporters.[158]." This is the statement being referred to, which makes no such claim: [2]

These are the opinions (i.e. claims without citation):

• "In October 2021, Paxton falsely claimed that Biden "overthrew" Trump in the 2020 election.[161]." While [161] does not opine with the word "falsely". The archived article ascribes "falsity" to a statement, but does not cite the sources for its assessment, merely states that they exist.
• "After Biden won the 2020 U.S. presidential election and Trump refused to concede while making false claims of election fraud,". No citation is provided by its author(s) to support the inclusion of the word "false".

There are 261 references in this article. That's a lot. I only researched the few that were relevant to my assertions. Cmilescody (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are numerous citations on articles related to the 2020 election that Trump's claims were false, so that won't be hard to cite.

If you are saying that the cited source claiming that AG Paxton's claim about Biden overthrowing Trump is false does not cite its sources, that's a question for the Dallas Morning News, not us. The other alternative is to argue that the DMN has a reputation of making things up out of whole cloth with no basis, but that needs to first be done at the reliable sources noticeboard. The same goes for The Texas Tribune(regarding their reporting on Paxton claiming the rioters posed as Trump supporters).

Typically, a lawsuit being tossed by a judge is understood to mean that the judge rejected the claim as false, since if it had merit they would have heard the case. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your engagement on these issues.

• Again, agreed. The reason for using "false" should not be hard to cite. The author(s) haven't yet cited it.
• "That's not us." The author(s) opined about "falsely". It c(s)hould say that the Dallas paper reported that... whatever. Otherwise it is a truth claim.
• Another (easier and better) alternative is to not insert opinion in an article intended to provide facts. Either omit "false" or put quotes around it.
• With regard to the Tribune reference... the author(s) claimed this:
  • Paxton falsely claimed that the rioters were liberal activists posing as Trump supporters.
• The Texas Tribune statement includes "had been infiltrated by" (not "were"). That is the difference between the author(s) saying "I am a puppy" and "I have a puppy". It's sloppy and misleading.
• With regard to judicial rejections, it doesn't matter what is "understood", it matters what is true. The Wikipedia statement says it "was shown to be false". That is not true. The truth is that the sources said this or that... in this case, officials were quoted (with proper quote marks) saying this or that. The referenced article states: "But the judge said 'a belief is not evidence' and falls short of the kind of allegation necessary to support the motion to undo certification.". I agree with the judge. A belief is not evidence that something is false.

Cmilescody (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to add a citation for calling Trump's election claims false. I may even do so myself when I get a moment. You can just find one on an existing article about the election and copy it, just providing where you got it from in the edit summary for attribution.

Nothing on Wikipedia is a truth claim. Wikipedia does not claim that what is presented is the truth, only that it can be verified. See WP:TRUTH. More specifically, the statement under WP:!TRUTHFINDERS: "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia." In this case, a reader can read the sentences cited to the Dallas Morning News and make a judgement as to what they think. If a reader doubts the reporting of the Dallas Morning News, that is their right. They may call up the Dallas Morning News and ask them what the basis of their reporting is. There are very few places on Wikipedia where information is qualified with "it's only according to X source" especially if the intent is to plant a seed of doubt that the source should not be trusted. If the source should not be trusted, then it shouldn't be used period and the concerned editor should go to the reliable sources noticeboard to get it depreciated as a source(as the WP:DAILYMAIL has been). I don't know what the reputation of the Dallas Morning News or Texas Tribue is in terms of their reporting. Again, if you want to argue that they make things up without any basis(and again, I have no idea, maybe they do.) you should open a discussion at the RSN.

Source 143 states at the end "The allegations in the complaint he's asking permission to file include many claims that have already been litigated unsuccessfully in state and federal courts in those states and debunked by fact checkers." I assume this is the basis of the article calling the claims false("debunked").

I don't really see the distinction you're seeing between "had been infiltrated by" and "were" but perhaps it is just differing perspectives. If, however, you think you can clean that statement up to better match what the source says, please do. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"You are more than welcome to add a citation"...

The person(s) making the claim should justify it, not I. That's what started this whole thing off, my adding after it.

"...it's only according to X source, especially if the intent is to plant a seed"...

I don't know how changing "false claim" to "claim" is planting a seed. Using "false claim" is obviously doing the seed planting.

Thanks for the info on adding/removing trusted sources. That seems like a very reasonable approach. I'll look into that.

[143]... You already know my arguments against seeding the reader. Verified sources should be verified (I trust no one... or can't you tell?). You've given me a means of addressing that. Thanks for that.

Thank you again for these exchanges. They were very helpful. I'm impressed with your perseverance. Cmilescody (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I will close by saying we are only as good as those who choose to participate and what they choose to do. You are free to limit yourself to pointing out your concerns, as this is a volunteer project where people are free to do as they wish, but the odds of seeing fixed what you feel needs fixing go up significantly if you choose to pitch in and help, especially with something fairly uncontroversial like adding a citation you feel is needed. Saying "X problem should be fixed" and walking away might work in time, but amount of time could vary. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

331dot (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)