Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 June 22

= June 22 =

What did Jay Sekulow mean when he said President Trump wasn't under investigation?
Sekolow said one thing and then said what sounded like the opposite. But he said he wasn't contradicting himself, so what is the explanation?64.134.238.170 (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are up referring to the Fox News interview? If so this has a transcript [//www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/19/trumps-lawyers-very-confusing-sunday-annotated/]. If that doesn't work, try [//www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/06/18/jay-sekulow-on-reports-bob-mueller-has-widened-investigation.html] (about the middle of the page). He says "He -- Chirrs, let me be clear, you asked me a question about what the president's tweet was regarding the deputy attorney general of the United States. That's what you asked me. And I responded to what that legal theory would be." I'm not aware that Sekulow (correct spelling) has commented more on the Fox News interview so it's unlikely you'll get any more explaination of what he means. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Possibilities:
 * (1) He's been exposed to too much Agent Orange too soon. He hasn't had time to acclimatize yet.
 * (2) The TV signals were crossed with broadcasts from Bizarro World, where BTW World President Trump has been reelected for life in a bigly landslide. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (3) It was fake news. Didn't happen.
 * (4) As others have speculated, the interview was conducted in Schrödinger's box and Trump's status is in a state of quantum superposition or maybe quantum superconfusion.
 * (5) It's all Obama's fault.
 * (6) It's all Crooked Hillary's fault.
 * (7) It's all Obama and Crooked Hillary's fault. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the confusion. The order of events: The Washington Post reports that President Trump, himself, is under investigation for firing FBI Director Comey. Next, Trump tweets that it investigating him is a witch hunt. Next, Trump's lawyer says that nobody has told Trump he is under investigation. Next, Wallace tries to get Trump's lawyer to say that the President isn't under investigation. Next, Trump's lawyer says that they haven't been told his under investigation, but that doesn't preclude someone from doing an investigation without telling them. Next, someone jumps on Wikipedia to ask what Trump's lawyer meant. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing might be why Trump's lawyer has hired his own lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The comments above are guesses, much bordering on snark, with no citations, and violate WP:BLP μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * μηδείς, how does any of what you've hidden violate BLP, which is about "adding information about living persons". What information has been added? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems clear cut BLP violation to me. Yes it may have been a joke but a fairly pointless one and given the BLP violation there was no reason for it (although deletion would have been better than hatting). Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I see Clarityfiend's comments as a joke, but mine were not. The Washington Post did report that President Trump was under investigation for firing FBI Director Comey. They claimed that they had unnamed sources to back their claim. It wasn't just one line in one article, it was a series of articles with titles such as "Trump is now under investigation and he has no one to blame but himself." So, it makes no sense that that claim is considered guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. Next, Trump did tweet that he was under investigation after reading the Washington Post article and he claimed it was a witchhunt. His exact tweet was: "I am being investigated for flying the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director. Witch hunt." So, that is not guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. Trump's lawyer, Sekulow, then was interviewed by Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Wallace tried to get Sekulow to say that Trump was under investigation, but Sekulow repeated that nobody has told them they are under investigation. Not being told about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Wallace went on to ask other questions. That is not guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. Finally, someone did ask here on Wikipedia what Sekulow meant. It is just a little higher up on this page. So, that is not guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. It appears that my comments are being hidden for political reasons. Since my comments don't support or attack Trump, I'm not sure what the person who hid them found that offended his personal political leaning. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You still can't smuggle in comments under the guise of explaining why you think they are justified without providing sources. Follow the rules, and provide citations to enable us to verify the implications. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Clarity's comments were on the border between political satire and BLP violations. I say that because it's the same kind of thing that the late-night comics say. The difference is that they are expected to be satirists. Wikipedia is supposed to be serious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is, there's a lot of grey area as to when somebody is "under investigation". The police often call somebody a "person of interest" specifically to avoid saying they are under investigation.  Anything short of a investigation specifically and exclusively targeting Trump could be characterized either way.  Jay was trying to use this ambiguity to have it both ways, by saying Trump is not under investigation, to make Trump look innocent, and also saying that the people investigating him are being unfair.  This is a rhetorical no-no. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Because it is obviously very important for Medeis to cover this up, though it makes no sense why...
 * Medeis obviously doesn't want anyone to know that this article exists. If you read it, you will see that the Washington Post claimed that President Trump was under investigation. The Washington Post didn't just write one article about it. They wrote this and this also. Of course, Medeis wants you to know that these are alleged articles written by the Washington Post. They don't really exist.
 * Next, Medeis is absolutely certain that this tweet does not exist. That is not the President's account with the little blue check on it. It was not discussed throughout media here and here and here and... well, why continue. Medeis says it is an alleged tweet. It doesn't exist. So, no matter how many articles are written about it, it still doesn't exist.
 * Trump's lawyer, Sekulow absolutely did not go on Fox News Sunday to be interviewed by Wallace. The transcript, here is obviously a complete fabrication. If you dare read it, against Medeis' advice, you will see a discussion of the Washington Post claims, discussion of the President's tweet, and you will not see a series of questions in which Wallace tries to get Sekulow to say definitely "yes, the President is under investigation" or "no, the President is not under investigation." Sekulow repeats that the President has not been notified that he is under investigation.
 * Finally, nobody ever visited this reference desk and asked what Sekulow meant with his responses to Wallace's questions.
 * Quick, Medeis, hat this. Hide it. Don't let anybody see it. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't be an ass (well, too late for that advice, I guess). I insisted on sources per WP:BLP, not a cover-up, and you obviously know that, since you have conformed, and given sources. Has wikipedia defeated you?  Next week, long division. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Naming a publication and giving the exact title of an article in that publication is a source. It has been considered a source for well over a century, if not two centuries. You demanded a URL, not a source. BLP does not require URLs. It requires sources. Purposely and stubbornly confusing the two is below you, which simply makes no sense why you insisted on it. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:PROVEIT. You are obviously unversed in BLP and just looking for a fight.  I envy you the time you have on your hands to provide proper sourcing out of spite.  I also find such dedication from a user hiding behind an IP just to name call impressive, in the way the invasive, inescapable, earthworm-killing New Zealand flatworm is impressive. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in BLP or PROVEIT does it state the a reference absolutely must be a URL. The example of a reference shown is "Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1.". From my point of view, this all hinges on you demanding that a URL be included with every reference. I disagree. A URL is not a requirement for a reference. It is nice, but not a requirement. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping anyone from seeing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the word "alleged", I recently saw a newscast refer to the "alleged" London apartment building fire. Leaving open the possibility it's fake news ? StuRat (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, "alleged" is now often applied to acts that are known to have occurred, as well as to people who are believed to be their perpetrators. A great example of the destruction of the English language before our very eyes.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ignorant newscasters seem to have taken the sensible instructions to "refer to those accused of crimes as having 'allegedly' committed the crimes, prior to conviction" and mistaken them as "randomly sprinkle the word 'allegedly' in every sentence". Then there's referring to all criminals as "gentlemen": "That's when the gentleman opened fire into the crowd."  StuRat (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Questions & Answers
Is there a Doctor Who website/site to ask questions and get answers? 31.48.57.254 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are many fan forums. Here's a Doctor Who wiki: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Try this - https://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/forums/. Or just put "Doctor Who Forum" into Google (other search engines are available) and pick one from the long list that comes up. Wymspen (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted "question by block evading troll. David J Johnson (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * For that I'll refer you to the top of the page where it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." --† dismas †|(talk) 20:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

shoe size
a mans shoe size of an 8 EEE what is the womans size equal to that size — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.2.170 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * According to Shoe size. In the U.S., a men's size 8 will be either a woman's size 12 or a women's size 9 depending on method.  RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Apparently women's shoes do come in EEE widths: and even EEEE: . StuRat (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)