User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2018/January

A goat for you!
Thank you for the reverts on my user talk page. Apparently "trolling Wikipedia" as a common New Year's resolution

 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC) 

FRC
FRC Action and FRC Action PAC are two distinct organizations. Your most recent edits got it right. My problem with the prior version was that it made it appear that the two were one and the same, which was incorrect. I was not trying to deny the existence of the PAC. SunCrow (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)\


 * Not really so different... The two organizations are intimately tied together, for instance with Brent Keilen serving as director of FRC Action, while managing FRC Action PAC. The only reason the FRC runs a separate PAC is because of US laws about campaign donation limits. Otherwise their goals are the same, the people are largely the same, etc. Binksternet (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. – Lionel(talk) 08:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Family Research Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Family_Research_Council check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Family_Research_Council?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren
Regarding Sen. Warren's Native American claims, it is well-documented—by the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, the Boston Herald, and The Atlantic, among others—that Warren has made unsubstantiated claims of Native American heritage. These sources, varyingly, have demonstrated that Warren:
 * claimed to be "white" at one university, while claiming to be a minority at other universities
 * self-identified as "Cherokee" for a book that was published in 1984, while she was simultaneously claiming to be "white" at the university where she worked at the time
 * has cousins who don't recall any stories of Native American ancestors from their parents
 * bases her claims on flimsy, speculative conjecture
 * has failed to provide actual Cherokees with any proof of her supposed Cherokee heritage, despite requests from the tribe to do so
 * has never had her Native American claims proven, not even by reliable methods used by respected genealogical societies

Now in fairness to Sen. Warren, there is no evidence that she posed as Native American for the purposes of gaining employment or promotions, nor am I implying that her intent was to exploit her supposed heritage for personal gain. But that's beside the point. Regardless of whether or not she unfairly benefited from her claims, she has indeed publicly made controversial assertions about herself that she hasn't been able to substantiate. And based on the reports from the above-named sources, it seems clear that, by definition, Elizabeth Warren is indeed an impostor, for the same reasons that Rachel Dolezal is an impostor.

It should also be noted that, to this date, she has yet to have her DNA tested for Native American ancestry, to settle the questions once and for all (if she has been tested, why hasn't anybody heard about it?). Therefore, Wikipedians are well within reason to list Elizabeth Warren under the category "Impostors." To do so is neither "unreferenced" nor "poorly referenced," as such references proving her impostor status were already listed in the Elizabeth Warren article even before it was categorized under "Impostors." Greggens (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. The article talk page is the place to discuss issues with the article, not my user talk page. 2. You have cited reliable sources which state that there is a dispute over her heritage, which we discuss in detail. You have not cited a reliable source which states as fact that Warren ever intentionally misrepresented her heritage, nor have you cited a reliable source which describes her as an "impostor." Ergo, everything you just wrote about that word is meaningless and prohibited original synthesis and may not appear in the encyclopedia. I suggest that you consult WP:BLP to understand our sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons. If you persist in reinserting the material contrary to policy, I will be forced to request administrative sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all: FYI, I've also posted a thread on this subject on the article's talk page. Second: even before your threats were posted, I chose not to restore my attempted edit at this time, precisely because I wanted to see what consensus was on the article talk page. Third: while Sen. Warren may or nay not have intentionally misrepresented her heritage at first, she certainly hasn't disavowed her earlier claims even when they took on a life of their own. If anything, she has doubled down on her original claims without making so much as an effort to prove them (re-read the references I've provided, and you'll see what I mean). And just because the media doesn't technically call her an "impostor," per se, doesn't mean that she isn't one, nor is it unencyclopedic to categorize her as such. If everyone in the media said that Charles Manson was convicted of killing four people, but stopped short of calling him a "mass murderer," that wouldn't mean that he wasn't a mass murderer, nor would it be wrong for anyone to call him a mass murderer. It's neither inappropriate nor "original synthesis" to state what is obvious, and the fact that you might disagree with such an assessment does not automatically make it any more doubtful. Greggens (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you're welcome to your opinion, even if it's wrong. Nothing you said here changes whether or not we can factually describe Warren as an impostor - we cannot, because there is not a single reliable source, much less a clear consensus of reliable sources, which describes her as such. Once again, that's the end of the story - if you can't source it, it doesn't go in an article. Fair warning: if you reinsert it into Warren's biography, not only will I revert you again but I'll also file a topic-ban request under the BLP and AP2 discretionary sanctions. You clearly misunderstand our fundamental content policies, so I suggest that you take some time to review them. Your unsourced personal opinion that Elizabeth Warren is an impostor has no place in this encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Misleading Edit Summary
Please watch your misleading edit summaries. In this reversion, you wrote: "An opinion column entitled 'Ten Facts That Point Out LaVoy Was Murdered' is not a reliable source here," however that was not the source I cited. BudJillett (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes, it was. From your own link: Ten Facts That Point Out LaVoy Was Murdered By Red Smith- The murder of LaVoy Finicum, a Constitutional activist, late last January has raised the ire of many across the nation. The initial narrative clung to by law enforcement officials, that they did not fire upon Mr. Finicum until he was believed to be reaching for a firearm, has been proven a categorical lie and left tattered in the bloody Eastern Oregon snowbank it originated in. Upon reviewing the hundreds of pages of documents made available by the Deschutes County Sheriff investigation team regarding the shooting, several facts have been made clear, confirmed and a few new ones exposed. The picture that is drawn is troubling to say the least and confirms the worst fears and suspicions of many Patriots since the beginning. At best this is an opinion column which can only be used for the cited opinions of the author, if we decide that the author, "Red Smith," has an opinion which is relevant to the article. It cannot be used to support factual claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)