Jump to content

Talk:Louise Mensch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 18:22, 10 July 2024 (Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mind your BLP-s and Q's

I want to remind those who keep reinserting the garbled smeary account of Mensch's twitter misadventures that this article is under DS for BLP and much of it relates also to American Politics. There is plenty of reasoned RS material from which to improve the article without resorting to cherrypicked SYNTH and incomplete article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, if you ever develop an interest in reading what any reliable sources actually have to say about Mensch, I would recommend "Lurid Trump allegations made by Louise Mensch and co-writer came from hoaxer," The Guardian, August 28, 2017.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP -- the issue is not what she has said, what successes and failures may be in her history. The issue is that your presentation is not fair and balanced and does not reflect an NPOV summary of RS reporting. You should not continue to edit war these BLP violations into the article, especially under cover of a battleground crusade against an imaginary sockpuppet, which for all the community knows could be a false flag and is certainly a red herring. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Fair and balanced" is merely a euphemism for "giving time to blatantly false political grifting." Facts are not "balanced;" facts simply are. You can't bend reality to your busted belief system, sorry. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you are asking for is false balance. RS are unanimous that Mensch promotes hoaxes and conspiracy theories. You've been asked innumerable times to provide RS that offer a more positive account of Mensch's work (e.g., here and here), but you've never responded, which strongly suggests those sources don't exist. (The one exception that proves the rule: SPECIFICO cited two articles from The Oregonian as supposedly drawing a sharp disctinction between Mensch's "true reports and not-confirmed reports," complete with genuine WP:WEASEL wording about unspecified "additional revelations ... that were later confirmed," but her summary bears little resemblance to the articles in question, which describe Mensch, e.g., as an "aggressive conspiracy theorist." Will SPECIFICO endorse using that descriptor?)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's legitimate debate to be had about how exactly to phrase the "conspiracy theorist" stuff, but BLP doesn't bar it from being mentioned in the lead, given how prominently it is discussed in most reporting about Mensch. The bigger issue here between the two versions (both of which do cover the conspiracy point of course) is the absurd level of detail about the one Heat St/FISA report. This one has way too much for a lead. The other version is definitely better in that respect. N-HH talk/edits 21:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO obviously prefers the old version because it achieves false balance by emphasizing the one thing Mensch got right ... kind of ... okay, not really, but what about the FISA warrant on Carter Page?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax sites and conspiracy sites can occasionally break stories. I'm sure the DailyMail, Breitbart and Gateway Pundit have stumbled upon real or half-accurate stories from time to time. I mean, Breitbart and Gateway Pundit even White House press credentials, and access to key figures. Yet, we don't spend the ledes of Breitbart and GP going into detail on the one story that those news sources got half-right. Neither should this article Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources have in no uncertain terms noted that she has promoted hoaxes and conspiracy theories. It's weaselry to say that she has been "accused of it" when the "accusers" are a number of reliable sources. Just as rightwing crackpots are described as such on their WP pages because RS describe them as such, so should Mensch be described as the RS describe here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLP protects persons from editors adding information that is not reliably sourced, which is not the case here. TFD (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue. The issue is misrepresentation of the central narrative in the body of mainstream RS reporting. And yes, the current text gives a spotty cherrypicked narrative that leads the reader to an incomplete and false impression. And sad to say, that could be fixed by the very editors who are warring to keep the current confused account in place. So I would say once again, RS is not the point. UNDUE and SYNTH are each part of the point and the rest of the point has been covered above on this page. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead's megacite contains a broad cross-section of representative reliable sources. If your argument is that these sources have been "cherrypicked" and that "the central narrative in the body of mainstream RS reporting" is more favorable to Mensch, you need to demonstrate that with sources, or you're just wasting our time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out the Battleground POV stuff. It is not about "favorable". It is about Accurate and Complete. SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is incomplete, you could try adding content—virtually all of your edits over the past several months involve you removing content added by others. But you haven't demonstrated that there is substance to your objection.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louise Mensch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combined refs

As I tried to explain in the edit summary [1], I don't see any reason to combine the refs in that way. I've sometimes seen this used when there is a footnote or at least some explanation, but it doesn't make sense in this way IMO. I also don't know why there is that other ref. What's special about it? It's the latest ref of that set, but the other refs also vary in time. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theorist Accusation in Intro

Last sentence in introductory piece reads 'Mensch, as well as her website Heat Street, has published multiple unverified claims, and promoted hoaxes and conspiracy theories about the Trump administration and its ties to the Russian Federation,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] leading her to be labelled a conspiracy theorist.'

Written with little objectivity and even less grammar. Have also checked sources sited and they are partisan news pieces.

Should either be re-written or removed. I would say the latter as not sure a politician's view on a specific series of incidents in Trump's presidency should feature in a summary of a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.100.55 (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this since the single source that called her a conspiracy theorist was an editorial/analysis piece in the Oregonian. The header already alleges she pushes conspiracy theories, anyways. notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 04:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check your own lazy implicit grammar before berating others. Stick with 'Chickclit' and I promise never to listen to Metallica again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.188.73 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qanon Anonymous podcast

The Anti Qanon podcast Qanon Anonymous which debunks conspiracy theories and Qanon did a episode on her https://soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/premium-episode-17-liberal-qanon-louise-mensch-bill-palmer-seth-abramson-sample Persesus (talk)

references all go like "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 1392:"

I'm not sure how to fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim333 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim333: I don't see that now; the references look fine to me. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - they've gone ok for me too now. I guess a temporary tech glitch. Tim333 (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louise_Mensch&oldid=1233752636"