3 ms·

Why won't you read one or more of the 30 links that Wikipedia cites in the above article? Since you don't read locked articles, would you like me to link them

by cozuya 6y ago

Why won't you read one or more of the 30 links that Wikipedia cites in the above article? Since you don't read locked articles, would you like me to link them here? I'd be happy to.

panny 6y ago
I am sorry I could not respond to your offer sooner. I am a wrongthinker you see, and we are not allowed to post very often on HN. I will decline your gracious offer, because those sources are going to be no better than the wikipedia article based on them. Starting at the top of the references section, I see the first supporting link is from Washington Post, a well known publisher of biased false information. Let me illustrate with an example: Washington Post recently admitted the sensational Trump Georgia call story was false. The entire story was based on hearsay from Jordan Fuchs and refuted by the recording of the call. The Post was forced to retract. Alone, presenting hearsay and rumors as fact is bad enough, but worse in the context where the sensational quotes were "independently confirmed" by several other "trusted" media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, etc. In fact, on a locked Wikipedia page on this topic, we see that Wikipedia continues to spread this false information more than a week after the retraction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Pressure_on_state_and_local_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... I won't read a locked wikipedia page, not just because the page itself is locked and editorialized, but because the supporting links are going to be equally poor quality sources from their echo chamber. These biased false stories are "locked" in, pretty much permanently. Editors rush to add them, and conveniently forget they are still referenced when the story turns out to be untrue. No one else with an interest in seeing them removed can do so because the page is locked. Wikipedia therefore, persists false stories under the lock indefinitely. The Washington Post publishes false rumors about the POTUS as confirmed facts. I have little hope that their coverage will be honest and thorough for someone much less significant like James O'Keefe. The lock is the first thing I check before reading anything on wikipedia. If it is locked, I close the page, because the page is invariably full of wild conspiracy theories from tabloid quality sources.
- cozuya 6y ago
  Here's the first "incident" referred to in the above link: > O'Keefe and colleagues were arrested in the Hale Boggs Federal Complex in New Orleans in January 2010 and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony, at the office of United States Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat. His three fellow activists, who were dressed as telephone repairmen when apprehended, included Robert Flanagan, the son of William Flanagan, acting U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Louisiana.[195][196] The four men were charged with malicious intent to damage the phone system.[197] O'Keefe stated that he had entered Landrieu's office to investigate complaints that she was ignoring phone calls from constituents during the debate over President Barack Obama's health care bill.[198] Which of these sentences, specifically, are false, biased, or misleading? Did O'Keefe not actually break into a federal building? Did he not state that he entered her office? Was he not actually arrested and charged with a felony? One more, in the Trump Georgia call, did Donald Trump say "I just want to find 11,780 votes"?
  - cozuya 6y ago
    No response? HOW QURIOUS.
- ipython 6y ago
  Citations needed? The trouble with trump is that there literally was too much going on. So it’s easy to divert or redirect whenever he’s caught doing something that would have brought down any other president on its own. You conveniently leave out the fact that trump made not one but two separate calls (that we know of) to pressure Georgia officials regarding the certification of the election results. One call to SOS raffensberger was made on January 2 and a hour long recording of it is not in dispute. This is the call where trump conveniently asks the official in charge of certifying the election in that state to “find” the exact number of votes required to flip the state from blue to red. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Raffensperger_phone_call https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Raffensperger_phone_ca.... Note that page is not “locked” so perhaps it will meet your criteria to consider reading it and the linked primary sources? Trump also made another call to Frances Watson, an official in raffensbergers office, earlier in December. This is the call you are referring to, where the post quoted text that turned out not to be accurate once the recording was released. The original quote said that Trump asked her to “find the fraud” and if she did she would become a “national hero”. Once the recording was released it was revealed he actually - a sitting US president - told her that “the country is counting on” her finding fraudulent votes in Fulton county. Trump used the confusion immediately to crow about how the reporting on the “Georgia call” is a hoax, knowing full well that most people will merge the two calls in their mind, casting doubt not only on the December call, but also on the much more damning January call as well. Short- I don’t care who you trust, but a recording of any sitting us president personally pressuring a state official to “find” just enough votes to flip the result to benefit him is a red line for democracy.

by cozuya 6y ago

Why won't you read one or more of the 30 links that Wikipedia cites in the above article? Since you don't read locked articles, would you like me to link them here? I'd be happy to.

panny 6y ago

I am sorry I could not respond to your offer sooner. I am a wrongthinker you see, and we are not allowed to post very often on HN. I will decline your gracious offer, because those sources are going to be no better than the wikipedia article based on them. Starting at the top of the references section, I see the first supporting link is from Washington Post, a well known publisher of biased false information. Let me illustrate with an example: Washington Post recently admitted the sensational Trump Georgia call story was false. The entire story was based on hearsay from Jordan Fuchs and refuted by the recording of the call. The Post was forced to retract. Alone, presenting hearsay and rumors as fact is bad enough, but worse in the context where the sensational quotes were "independently confirmed" by several other "trusted" media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, etc. In fact, on a locked Wikipedia page on this topic, we see that Wikipedia continues to spread this false information more than a week after the retraction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Pressure_on_state_and_local_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... I won't read a locked wikipedia page, not just because the page itself is locked and editorialized, but because the supporting links are going to be equally poor quality sources from their echo chamber. These biased false stories are "locked" in, pretty much permanently. Editors rush to add them, and conveniently forget they are still referenced when the story turns out to be untrue. No one else with an interest in seeing them removed can do so because the page is locked. Wikipedia therefore, persists false stories under the lock indefinitely. The Washington Post publishes false rumors about the POTUS as confirmed facts. I have little hope that their coverage will be honest and thorough for someone much less significant like James O'Keefe. The lock is the first thing I check before reading anything on wikipedia. If it is locked, I close the page, because the page is invariably full of wild conspiracy theories from tabloid quality sources.

cozuya 6y ago
Here's the first "incident" referred to in the above link: > O'Keefe and colleagues were arrested in the Hale Boggs Federal Complex in New Orleans in January 2010 and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony, at the office of United States Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat. His three fellow activists, who were dressed as telephone repairmen when apprehended, included Robert Flanagan, the son of William Flanagan, acting U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Louisiana.[195][196] The four men were charged with malicious intent to damage the phone system.[197] O'Keefe stated that he had entered Landrieu's office to investigate complaints that she was ignoring phone calls from constituents during the debate over President Barack Obama's health care bill.[198] Which of these sentences, specifically, are false, biased, or misleading? Did O'Keefe not actually break into a federal building? Did he not state that he entered her office? Was he not actually arrested and charged with a felony? One more, in the Trump Georgia call, did Donald Trump say "I just want to find 11,780 votes"?
- cozuya 6y ago
  No response? HOW QURIOUS.
ipython 6y ago
Citations needed? The trouble with trump is that there literally was too much going on. So it’s easy to divert or redirect whenever he’s caught doing something that would have brought down any other president on its own. You conveniently leave out the fact that trump made not one but two separate calls (that we know of) to pressure Georgia officials regarding the certification of the election results. One call to SOS raffensberger was made on January 2 and a hour long recording of it is not in dispute. This is the call where trump conveniently asks the official in charge of certifying the election in that state to “find” the exact number of votes required to flip the state from blue to red. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Raffensperger_phone_call https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Raffensperger_phone_ca.... Note that page is not “locked” so perhaps it will meet your criteria to consider reading it and the linked primary sources? Trump also made another call to Frances Watson, an official in raffensbergers office, earlier in December. This is the call you are referring to, where the post quoted text that turned out not to be accurate once the recording was released. The original quote said that Trump asked her to “find the fraud” and if she did she would become a “national hero”. Once the recording was released it was revealed he actually - a sitting US president - told her that “the country is counting on” her finding fraudulent votes in Fulton county. Trump used the confusion immediately to crow about how the reporting on the “Georgia call” is a hoax, knowing full well that most people will merge the two calls in their mind, casting doubt not only on the December call, but also on the much more damning January call as well. Short- I don’t care who you trust, but a recording of any sitting us president personally pressuring a state official to “find” just enough votes to flip the result to benefit him is a red line for democracy.