User talk:Atsme/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

CNN's bias

FYI, I consider CNN to have a slight left bias. This chart is pretty good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Except at least the Jacobin is way to the left of where they have it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And the New Republic is nowhere near that leftist. On some things its downright right wing (foreign policy).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but what country would one consider the center? I've always thought of the center as a moving target. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit of both. Some policy questions have a sort of more natural metric (how high you think taxes should be?) while other are more subjective.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think they're judging it by political persuasion of the viewers. Perhaps rather than saying right or left, a much better analysis would be liberal or conservative. We have both in each party. CNN also leads internationally - Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America - (and all throughout the Caribbean islands). ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

She says that she bases it on the stories and their content, not the viewers. Also, she seems to be trying really hard to make it look like a bell curve for some reason, which, since this is a 2D graph makes no sense (this is probably why she put Jacobin as much closer to the center than it really is).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

CNN's programming varies quite a bit. In the USA, its international coverage is limited and pitiful. In Europe, it's much more like the BBC, with a wide array of coverage of international affairs. I would even say the European coverage is more "objective", like BBC's. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Since we've got so many editors here who are interested in sourcing, I'd appreciate comments and help here: User:BullRangifer/Reliable sources stash. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree about CNN, BR. I have CNN Alerts on my Mac. Also use AP - habit, I guess. It still all boils down to $$$. The networks will broadcast to attract/cater to whatever brings them the most cash - kinda like our politicians. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer - for your RS stash, read Pew Research Center's Journalism & Media, and Science News which states: But despite this similar-stripe clumping, Fox News and The New York Times are relatively close to each other, suggesting that, as far as quoting patterns go, these two mainstream outlets aren’t all that different. Hey - I didn't write it... ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting reading. One thing that stood out to me from Otero's chart is that the right (conservative) side of the red rectangle (the least trustworthy sources) contains numerous sources that I hear about regularly, whereas the left (liberal) side of the same group contains sources I personally have never heard of. Maybe that means that right-wing propagandists have a lot more reach, or maybe it just means I don't get around enough. The Pew source is really focused on what the various audiences think, as opposed to making a judgment of its own, but it very much documents the regrettable separation into tribes in the US. But as much as I like science, the Science News piece strikes me as a bit silly. It's just the results of a computer search for various terms, sans any human commonsense interpretation, so it has elements of garbage-in/garbage-out. And that is likely the reason why that quote says what it says. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You said ...or maybe it just means I don't get around enough. Send me the address to your retirement home and I'll send you an Uber...my gift to you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I really like the Pew Research Center. They do good work. This interactive chart is very enlightening. One can spend a lot of time with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

CNN International is quite boring – at least it was when I traveled heavily. It is popular because it was first, and because hotels didn’t have more than a few channels in older days. (Yikes I’m getting old.) It was like reading the Straits Times in earlier days in the areas around Singapore, which then consisted basically of stories from the NYT. Defining a country’s politics has become difficult. Shanghai, Hong Kong (including mainland Kowloon), Hainan, and several other coastal areas are more capitalist than the US. The most historically communist “city” in my memory, may have been Jamestown in colonial Virginia (the common kettle and I don’t mean that nutcase in Jonestown). It’s important to realize that the center is not a point. If it were, there would only be one person in the center. The center is fairly wide as so many people have sympathies with parts of differing philosophies and aims. What it comes down to, in my mind, is that the right/left/liberal/conservative terms should be avoided unless something/someone is outside of that wide area. Thus far, I think we’re doing that. Obviously, someone outside of that center area will feel differently, as Einstein tells us, everything is relative. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In physics, it's relativity. In humanity, it's perspective; therefore, what's relative depends on one's perspective. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, that's perfect. Perhaps you should edit science articles for a few months? SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Your timing is perfect!! I was just going to invite you to help out at NPP and AfC where you'll be able to explore more of your editing potential. We could use the help! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for sharing the links to the "bias chart" and the Pew study. I have a couple of observations about them—recognizing, of course, that neither is the last word on the subject.

  The chart suggests that Wikipedian discourse about media bias is severely skewed. We frequently hear editors mis-cast centrist/highly reliable sources (e.g. NPR, PBS, Associated Press, NBC/ABC/CBS) as "liberal" or liberal-leaning, and we also frequently have editors pushing to treat hyper-partisan/low-quality sources like Fox News, the Daily Caller, or the Washington Times as reliable sources. (In contrast, I don't recall anyone seriously pushing to treat the "red-box" liberal sources as reliable). These categorizations come from the chart, not my own opinion, but they suggest that Wikipedia has a significant conservative bias in its sourcing. Our Overton window, or our center of gravity, when it comes to sourcing discussions is right-skewed; we treat centrist sources as inherently "liberal", and treat low-quality right-wing sources as potentially reliable.

  The Pew study, as others have pointed out, doesn't directly address media bias, but rather explores where people of various political leanings tend to get their news. Their findings are striking. Liberals seem to get their news from a relatively wide range of sources, nearly all of which score highly for centrism/reliability on the chart from the previous paragraph. In contrast, conservatives get their news from Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. Now, three of those four do not even purvey news. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck present themselves (when pushed) as opinion commentators, and don't pretend to any standard of objectivity, factual accuracy, or journalistic ethics (the recent flap about Hannity and Michael Cohen being one case in point). These sources routinely transmit conspiracy theories and damagingly inaccurate partisan nonsense. The fourth source (Fox News), while more mainstream, has a relatively poor reputation when it comes to both neutrality and accuracy. Does it seem concerning that right-leaning media consumers rely heavily or totally on such sources? It also explains some recurring conflicts on Wikipedia, if the information sources trusted by right-leaning editors conflict with Wikipedia's preference for accurate, neutral content. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Those are very interesting points. I'm glad to see that I appear not to be the only editor who is largely unfamiliar with the "red box liberal" sources! But I'm interested in your broader point about the possible bias of Wikipedia. Like you, I have seen editors miscast centrist sources as liberal. But of course there have also been lots of discussions about Fox News being a reliable source for sport scores but not for politics or current events. So I tend to think, but I could very easily be wrong, that although there are outspoken editors who betray a US-conservative POV in discussions, by the time consensus is reached, at least at high-traffic pages, the consensus tends to balance out and the actual content that readers see does not skew consistently one way or the other. I'm not denying that it skews all over the place, and I dislike recentism, but I'm just saying that there might not be a consistent direction of that skew. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Tryp, you've already seen the following link, and I'm thinking I already tormented Drmies with it in an unrelated discussion. What I can't remember is if I shared it with MastCell, (blaming the seahorse part of my brain), so I'm posting again: Science News: But despite this similar-stripe clumping, Fox News and The New York Times are relatively close to each other,suggesting that, as far as quoting patterns go, these two mainstream outlets aren’t all that different. Hey - we go by what RS say, right? It doesn't get any more reliable than Science News. Welcome to the world of politics! 😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you partly directed that to me, I feel the need to point out that I said the first time that I think the quote should not be taken seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't tell me you're doubting Science News!!?? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm doubting Science News. (Yeah, I know, you told me not to tell you that!) Of course, that's not the same thing as doubting science. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

ScienceNews contains decent news coverage, but let's be clear, Atsme: you're quoting a blog published by ScienceNews. I mean, we're not exactly talking about the acme of reliable sourcing. You can't complain about "cherrypicked opinion journalism" and then turn around and cite cherrypicked opinion journalism to support your viewpoint. (Well, you can, but you shouldn't). MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How can you doubt something called Science News? That would be like doubting Scientology or Creationism. I don’t like it when I become sarcastic. But, the sources used by some editors to try to bring a POV into an encyclopedia are an enormous timesink. O3000 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, hopefully you know I was joking, right? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really. I mean, I could tell you were joking about the title (ScienceNews), but you seemed serious in asserting that the blog piece provided meaningful support for your argument about FoxNews et al. If you weren't, I apologize for misunderstanding. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MastCell, yes I was being lightheartedly facetious, and no apology necessary. I have learned quite a bit from our discussions, and thank you for your time, patience and consideration. Now that I'm long past the age of knowing it all, I've discovered that learning new things (the easy way) can be very rewarding...not saying you're easy 🦍 or that there's anything wrong with that...😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See Poe's law. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		Home-Made Barnstar
		"The Home-Made Barnstar is awarded to people who do a lot of work in difficult areas and do it well." Factchecker_atyourservice 18:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Three little birds
Pitch by my doorstep
Singing sweet songs
Of melodies pure and true
Saying, this is my message to you

Keep it up and keep citing great sources, Atsme. It's going to be alright. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Awwww...thank you, FCAYS! I truly enjoy and appreciate homemade. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I have a present for you. It is a song that I wrote. It is called "32 kilobytes of neutrally reflected high-quality RS fact and opinion coverage regarding the Trump-Russia dossier collusion claims". It is in G minor, for now anyway. I hope that this will alleviate some of your concerns about the article. Cheers! Factchecker_atyourservice 01:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Kinda spooky, but The_Dance_(song) started playing in the background on Alexa while I was reading the lyrics to the song you wrote. 👻 ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hah, cool. Sorry for my weird comment. I was a little shell shocked. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't find your comment the least bit weird - picked up on it right away. Weird was when that song just started playing on Alexa. She sometimes responds to audio from the 📺 so that's probably what happened. BTW, I thought the material you added was very well-written, encyclopedic, all cited to quality RS and very informative. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for it to be reverted...and for no good reason. One of the things I dislike most about the 1RR/Consensus needed to restore restriction is that it hinders article expansion and improvement. Our poor overworked admins don't have the time to get bogged down in content disputes, and I imagine they get pretty frustrated themselves having to shuffle through daily behavioral disputes, vandals, socks, trolls, etc. I'd sure hate to see you get blocked over some silly dispute, so please don't sample the bait. I know you put a lot of work into the material you added this evening - it belongs in the article. Maybe if you present small sections on the TP first, they might be more receptive? It can always be expanded over time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:16, April 28, 2018‎    

That article is too much of a mess of tendentious editors and administrators, I'm not enduring months of abuse through a painstaking hand-holding process where in reality I am simply waiting for editors to come to terms with their emotions about Trump so that they can finally allow RS's to be heard saying something non-negative about him. I didn't even vote for the guy but behavior by WP editors since his election has been . . . wait for it . . . deplorable.

Actually I was kind of hoping others would be willing to endure the abuse on my behalf. Hint hint.

WP is not supposed to be an adversarial courtroom process where a baseline of POV editors attempt to defeat 5-pillars compliance via shouted nonsense and !votes.

Also, just to note, it was very long but it was the same problem I faced with my earlier comments. If I tried to focus on a small issue, it would be claimed I was missing the big picture (as Bull in fact repeatedly claimed with his Infowars nonsense.

Likewise, if I tried to hit the macro issues, as I did in my comments, I was criticized for the comments being too long.

Same deal with the research and prose I wrote. If I hadn't included soooooo many citations, it would have been claimed I wasn't fairly representing the field of reporting and commentary. But since I did cover the field in detail, the resulting content is allegedly too long. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Also just to nitpick, because I'm so darn good at it, technically WP:FRINGE refers only to sources, not every context in which there is a majority/minority... while GOP is indeed the majority on that intel committee, their report didn't change a lot of minds and got quite a bit of flak in the press.

More to the point, don't get sucked in to the idea that mainstream published viewpoints are ever FRINGE. That's a line of BS that has been invented to try to exclude conservative sources and commentary simply for not being the majority view. I blame Bull. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You lil nitpicker, you 😊! I was actually pulling his leg by mentioning WP:FRINGE. It never hurt anyone to get slapped with a logical fallacy once in a while, but on a more serious note, I think we should all be concerned over any attempt to stifle media for having opposing views. I'm of the mind that having 100% centrist views isn't the answer, either - all significant views should be included. I cringe over the criticism that right leaning RS are not reliable based on the views of a few pundits that fill the bulk of the later primetime slots. I tend to get a bit fidgety when I see news networks that are too closely aligned with multiple levels of government (particularly involving close family members in top positions in government and vice versa), especially if it includes intelligence agencies (DOJ). News can easily become spoonfed propaganda (and it's legal). That's what opens doors to state-run media...just ask anyone from mainland China, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Uzbekistan, or Syria how they like it. Some Americans tend to be too trusting of/dependent on government, which as history has proven, can lead to complacency. For years, I played the role of intermediary (of sorts) between government agencies needing public awareness programming via public television broadcast. My focus at that time was on environmental/conservation issues so it basically boiled down to private advocacies fighting the encroachment of big government and vice versa. You could say politics was involved...deeply involved. 😳 ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, I'll reply to this later but in the meantime I object you calling my nitpicking "little". It's actually quite large, one of the biggest—that is what a lot of people are saying, I can tell you.Factchecker_atyourservice 20:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

File:AdRufHand.jpg

A human hand, used in measuring the height of a horse.
This photo is not meant to be representative of Trump's hand.
^{Atsme📞📧} 22:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Bait-click, bait box, trolling, don't take the bait.
^{Atsme📞📧} 01:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty then...go ahead and upload a life size picture of your hands photoshopped beside a life size picture of Trump's hands. It's the only way we can accurately judge the size of your nitpicking. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hands? But I . . . never mind. Seriously though, what I was going to say was, it was long the standard on WP that articles would allow everybody to have their little say, so long as each view was, within reason, published in RS. Over time that morphed into the idea that conservative views should be minimized because they're not majority views—still later that morphed into the idea that conservative ideas should always be ignored. And at some point people seriously began to make arguments like that criticism is important and well-sourced but it can't be included because the article would then be too long! Because nothing helps inform the reader like copy pasting from a press release and a couple of friendly opinion sources and then insisting everything else is "unreliable" or "non-notable".

The below is a joke, but it's funny because it's true:

HISTORY OF WIKIPEDIA

2008 we can reflect all mainstream sources neutrally, but we have to mention that the conservative ones are conservative and possibly include something implying or stating that conservatives are dumb/wrong

2010 we can can reflect all mainstream sources, but we have to name and shame the conservative ones and use weasel words and other techniques to impart suspicion of the view expressed

2012 we cannot source to any conservative sources

2013 we cannot source to The New York Times if it is a conservative writer

2014 we cannot source to The New York Times if it is a liberal writer espousing a view associated with conservatives

2015 we cannot source to The New York Times if it is a liberal writer espousing a view deemed by some to be supportive of Israel or insufficiently progressive

2016 we should not source to The New York Times generally because it is too conservative and supportive of Israel

2017 we should not cite American newspapers in general because they are too conservative and supportive of Israel

2018 F*** YOU, RIGHT WING ZION PIG SCUM, TRUMP IS THE DEVIL

Source: a guy who voted for Hillary Clinton. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

- I think it works the same way in reverse when it's a Dem prez and Congress. Gawd, I hate politics!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I almost think that Wikipedia has political articles just for the clicks . . . ;) Factchecker_atyourservice 01:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The page view stats are certainly interesting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

When I hear someone asserting, even in jest, that Wikipedia treats US conservatism badly, my first thoughts go to there being a POV-pusher. I have some very strong personal opinions about Trump, and they are no secret, but I try very hard to argue for neutral coverage of him. When there was an April 1 joke about his possible connection to Russia, it was me who was arguing very hard for caution and Atsme who said it was funny so go for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: ok then, if you think I'm a POV pusher I'd love to hear why. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If I were sure of that, I wouldn't be saying that here. I'm talking about how it comes across. When someone jokes that WP promotes the idea that Trump is the devil, it sounds like they think WP needs to alter how we cover Trump, in a more positive way. I consider Atsme a wiki-friend, and I comment to her from time to time that the discussion on her talk page may lead onlookers to think that she is non-neutral. Like it or not, appearances matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you Typto. My comments were based on my feelings regarding the way WP has changed in the past 10 years, although I had few conservative views when I began. Once upon a time, I feel pretty sure I could have referenced Wall Street Journal without argument or abuse, and if Theresa May or some other world leader were quoted in Fox, nobody would dispute the quoting of a world leader just because it was Fox (or whatever). Nowadays it seems like the consensus among editors is that not only are right-leaning sources strongly discouraged if not outright forbidden, left leaning sources should be ignored too if they say the wrong things. Moreover, there is a troubling impulse to render partisan narratives as fact simply because they are embraced by such a large proportion of WP editors. Plain confirmation bias and demographics. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice - meet Tryptofish...my wiki-friend and mentor of sorts...a punderful inspiration for Wiki-discussions. We are (yes, there are others) a unique bunch who comprise the humor project. It's where we go to maintain our sanity. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I hope we are all good now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Extremely belated reply: toolbox access for Reflinks

Greetings! Saw your comment about it on User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Reflinks bug. Someone else had independently pointed out the issue, and I fixed it (hopefully). Just thought I'd drop you a note anyhows, in case you still want it in the left margin. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Late is better than no reply at all. Thank you, Rotideypoc!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I did see you referred to the Manafort stuff as NOTNEWS and I just wanted to say that my comments have been intended to refer to people who are citing NOTNEWS in this case but have no such concern for anti-Trump stuff that is more weakly sourced. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

FCAYS - I was hoping my comments were unambiguous as they relate to my concerns across the board regarding noncompliance with NOTNEWS & NPOV. Far too many of the Trump-related articles are based primarily on journalistic opinion, speculation and unsubstantiated allegations - WP is becoming a news org mirror and that concerns me. I don't know what it will take to get admins to enforce NOTNEWS policy retrospectively. I think if they did, it may actually set a more positive direction toward improving/expanding Wikinews, leaving the en.Wikipedia for real encyclopedic information. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Interleaving

Hey. This edit inserted your comment in the middle of an existing comment, stranding its first line. I'll let you decide where to move it, but it needs to be moved. The guideline is at WP:TPO. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandruss - fixed, (I think). ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hang in there

Keep speaking the truth and whatever you do, don't let the gaslighting get to you; you have people behind you and beside you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 09:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support, -- ψλ. It makes me sad that we have to deal with such nonsense. There are far too many instances that go beyond GF content collaboration and trying to get the article right. If you take the gaslighting into consideration, the disruptive behavior appears to be more like soapboxing and POV pushing to further a cause - be it moral or political - and quite frankly, when an editor has that much of a COI, they should not be editing those articles. There’s no other reason for such behavior or for wanting to inundate an article with nothing but unfounded allegations, disinformation and speculation, or worse, obsess over it. Since MelanieN has been spending less time at those articles, and with JFG on wikibreak, things seem to have escalated. I’ve never suggested not including negatives - we include ALL relevant views cited to RS - negative, positive and indifferent - and we also know that contentious statements and derogatory opinions require in-text attribution to the author. Oh, and here’s another uh-oh DS vio that occurred last night. I advised the editor on their TP but they have not self-reverted. It’s just plain disruptive, especially when others are making the effort to do the right thing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

And the latest, a disagreement over the numbers of international students allowed, looks of only peripheral consequence. Last I read, less than 3% of college income is derived from international students, and if that is correct, this can easily be made up by cutting back on those preposterous tenured professor salaries and other do nothing admins that sit around screeching about the latest invented injustice to rally behind.--MONGO 16:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s ridiculous - but it explains the concern by tenured profs and why it may seem far more important than the reality proves....uhm, POV issue maybe? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I miss college so much its not funny. I wish I could go back in time and see all my old professors and other students. All I know is the issue at that page is a nonissue and its just one more silly "dig" attempt to make Trump look bad. Most of the time when I read anything form those articles they appear like they were written by extreme partisans.--MONGO 18:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, do you have a source for the statement that <3% of college income derives from international students? Not a gotcha question; I'm asking because I haven't been able to find reliable statistics on the topic, and universities are notoriously opaque about such things. Let me try to explain why a decrease in international student enrollment is a bad thing for pretty much all of us:

• First of all, international students bring money from outside the US into the US, which is generally a Good Thing. The most recent reliable statistics I can find suggest that international students contribute nearly $37 billion to the US economy annually. Fewer international students means less money coming into the US.
• Universities are huge job creators, and they create decent jobs with good benefits. The impact of colleges and universities as employers is especially profound in smaller and more rural areas. International students are responsible for about 450,000 jobs in the US ([1]). When international-student enrollment drops, colleges and universities cut job openings and fire people. These job losses will be felt disproportionately by areas that are already disadvantaged in the national job market. Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia will be fine, but smaller colleges in less popular locales are the ones most dependent on foreign enrollment to sustain themselves and the jobs they create.
• International students disproportionately enroll in STEM programs, and their presence helps support the existence of such programs. When international enrollment drops, some colleges are forced to cut STEM programs—depriving US citizens of the opportunity for training in fields that are frequently a pathway to a comfortable living.

As for tenured professors, their salaries vary greatly. The average salary for a full-time ranked faculty member at a US university in 2016 was about $80,000/year ([2]), which is certainly a decent living but hardly "preposterous" for someone with an advanced degree in a competitive field. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Why does this "make Trump look bad" - he doesn't like certain foreigners. His policies have reduced the number of foreigners living among our students and their communities. Success. What's not to like? SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As someone recovering from tenured professorship, I can provide first-hand testimony that the salaries are dishearteningly low. To characterize that as overpaid is utter nonsense. And Atsme, I looked at the diff you linked to in your initial reply to WV here. What on earth were you thinking? (Rhetorical question, don't bother answering it.) The paragraph you wanted to revert was about as blandly factual as I could imagine, and to paint it as a DS violation is preposterous. You know me as a wiki-friend, so I hope you can trust my good faith judgment here. There is nothing remotely gaslight-y about disagreeing with you about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Tryp, I'm not the one who erred. Try reading the article DS, the sequence of edits, and the discussion I started on the article TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you know, after I logged off last night the same thing occurred to me, so my apologies for having overlooked that aspect. But please hear me (even if, per the talk section below, I am perhaps one of the unreasonable with whom it's not possible to reason) when I say that the underlying issue of whether the paragraph should or should not be on the page is absolutely not one of POV. Due weight, maybe. But the idea, on both "sides", that information about those student statistics is in any way anti-Trump is just looking for a fight where no fight should exist. Wikipedia simply is not capable of getting current events in US politics just right, until some time has passed, so editors should settle for good enough. What I'm seeing are political wars being fought in proxy over who can demonstrate the superior ability to include or exclude content that is only partisan when editors want to construe it as such. For the most part, sensible editors just stay out of it, and a lot of those who stay in it will eventually get topic-banned. I know you and like you too much to want to see you get caught in that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Tryp, you have collaborated with me on a few different topics, and I think (hope) you know that I'm too much of a pragmatist to let emotions shadow my writing...liken it to the way doctors/surgeons are able to suppress their feelings in order to do their work - it's not because they don't have feelings, if you get my drift...so if, Lord forbid, I'm found guilty of disruption, it won't be for that reason...I'm neither pro nor anti anyone when it comes to my writing, especially when it's an encyclopedia (chalk it up to many years of training/doing). You'll also notice that I didn't say it was a POV issue, I questioned if it could be. Keep in mind that WEIGHT & BALANCE are part of our NPOV policy - Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. - therefore, viewpoints are indeed a POV, and if the material weighs too heavily one way, I call it POV, don't you? - at least, that's my perspective, and it has nothing to do with any of the preconceived notions that it must be the result of partisanship. It may well be that way for those opposing what I've done or may be proposing to do, but it certainly isn 't partisanship on my part, and my edits and commentary support what I'm saying. Having said that, I want you to know that I understand and appreciate your concerns - your input makes me stop and reevaluate to make sure I haven't made a terrible mistake. I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong. You also provide a different perspective and a broader view of things that I often don't consider because I'm focused on grammar, relevance, basic copy-editing/reviewing/accuracy/sources, etc. Tryp, do you remember my efforts to launch Project Accuracy? I still believe it would have been a net positive for the project. Anyway, I've filed your message into my caution cabinet and thank you for looking out for me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, and that's a good answer all around. I agree that you, yourself, never took any of those positions. (In fact, the more that I see, the more that I am confident that you are not being partisan.) But of course other editors did take those positions, and there's a nasty way of stuff rubbing off on those nearby. Appearances and all that. About weight, sometimes something can be undue weight without it tending in any direction with respect to POV. Too much information, as opposed to giving preference to one side or the other. Anyway, hang in there! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're one of the rarest of the rare and was a tenured professor and made less than the median income for your region then you got tenure at the wrong place and we'll that's your own fault. Of course a former tenured professor would naturally think that the edit in question is pertenient to the coatrack storyline of "How mean nasty Trump has simply ruined everything".--MONGO 20:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I smell bad too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This conclusion is so bizarre that it bears repetition: The policy is brilliant. It reduces the number of aliens among us, deprives educational institutions of cash flow, threatens the job security and wellbeing of the effete resistance that has taken over our campuses, and prevents rural white folks from getting to know peers from other lands and cultures. How could this be anything other than a great success for the Trump Administration and its base and backers? Ruined what? He's only "ruined" everything detestable in modern American life from a certain POV. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, no. I see what you're doing, but I want to go back to what MONGO said. MONGO (and Atsme), do you believe that $80,000/year is a "preposterous" salary for someone with an advanced degree and outstanding competence in a specialized field (as demonstrated by securing a rare and highly competitive tenure-track position)? MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Any paycheck is preposterous for immigrants, scholars, city-dwellers, civil servants, and racial or lifestyle minorities. Isn't that the proposition that's on the table? (my last comment here) SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in here, this is actually a very interesting conversation. MastCell I am curious about the answer to your question as well, but I would also like to hear what rate you would find reasonable? PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, please refer to my explanations at the article TP - Presidency of Donald Trump#Declines in foreign enrollments - which clarifies my position, and the DS vio which resulted in the editor self-reverting as soon as she became aware. I acted responsibly, politely and the reasons I gave fully support my position. I think you'll find that I agree with you for the most part but disagree that it belongs in that article or that the Trump admin immigration policies should be portrayed as the primary reason. The 2016 comprehensive survey does not belong in the article - predates Trump admin - and neither does the snap shot preliminary survey or any of the speculation that accompanies it...and RS support my belief and have provided some of the contributing variables, including a drop in domestic enrollments. The way the original edit was worded was very one-sided (POV) and did not include the substantial variables that resulted in the declines. I suggested finding alternative articles where the information would actually prove helpful. As for salaries...I found this interesting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

About that piece about the 10 highest paid, it's important to realize that those are outliers. One of the 10 is a Nobel Prize winner, and the other nine are all in areas where their primary gig, as a physician in a few cases and as a businessperson in all the others, is far more high paying than is being a professor, so they can command much higher salaries than their fellow department members because they could walk if they didn't like their pay. At US medical schools, it's typical for associate professors with MD degrees to be paid double to triple what full professors with PhDs get. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Even liberal institutions like those of higher learning pay based on going market rate. And even there salaries are often negotiated, not set in stone. Since engineers can find jobs outside academia its no shock that they may make more than someone teaching about quilting. Perhaps I was being droll when I said "preposterous" in my mentioning about tenured or any teaching salary rate, and its not surprising others would take that as an all or nothing comment to be dissected endlessly. In answer to @MastCell:, salary is what it is and if indeed the tenured teaching ranks were filled with so many disgruntled and underpaid professors we would likely see a higher pre retirement age departure rate than we do. The lower rank adjunct instructors etc. do make abysmal salaries and in most cases they do leave mainly cause they cannot afford to keep teaching. But 80K is well above the 50K average national median salary. If that 80K is made in NYC, San Fran, Wash, DC or similar extremely high priced areas, well then that's lousy pay. If made in Ames, IA, or Lincoln, NE then its excellent pay. As far as the compensation based on years of education, so what? Higher educational attainment is not always in correlation to what the salary will be and college professors are not making multimillion dollar decisions that impact the jobs of dozens to hundreds of others below them. I have a masters degree and once managed 65 people not even 15 years ago and was paid 45K for constant 60 hour weeks and getting calls all the time day and night, but I did it because I liked the job. College professors aren't doing "dirty" jobs, nor are they working in extreme conditions that might warrant hazard duty pay like fighting a forest fire, or climbing wind towers. But most fire fighters do what they do cause they like it...that's why I did it cause I sure didn't get rich doing it.--MONGO 13:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think firefighters are underpaid, as are police and, above all, public school teachers. One of the reasons that "underpaid professors" often do not take early retirement is because they cannot afford to. Just FYI, I was not referring to my own salary above, but to what I observed in the profession as a whole. Most tenured faculty get tenure at the "wrong place", because the job market does not allow easily moving from one institution to another, so most take what they can get, and yes, they typically do it because they like doing it. (In my own case, it was definitely the "wrong" institution, but in a different way. I sued them and won a six-figure settlement.) The budgetary effect of getting fewer international students at most universities depends upon the budget model that the individual university has. Those that derive most of their cash flow from endowments and external grants won't see any significant budget effect, just a regrettable loss of diversity. Those that derive most of their cash flow from tuition will just raise tuition, but not change staff salaries. The dirty little secret about academic tenure in the US is that it has almost nothing to do with academic freedom. By giving tenure, schools can retain talented faculty whose abilities would otherwise garner much higher salaries outside academia. And the effect of that is to keep student tuition from getting even higher than it is. In other words, the primary function of tenure is to keep students costs lower (relatively, of course!) than they would otherwise be. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate MONGO bringing a much broader perspective to the discussion....I never gave much thought to pay scales prior to this discussion, so it was enlightening. Gee, Tryp - I thought you'd be telling us which of the top ten is you. 😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm the one with those scales! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That list can't possibly be correct. I know professors who make more money than some of the top 10 people identified there. Specifically, quite a few academic physicians earn >$500,000 annually. I suspect many faculty in highly-reimbursable fields (surgical subspecialties, interventional cardiology, dermatology, etc.) earn more than some of the people on that list. (Bearing in mind that their salaries as academic physicians are generally lower than what they would earn in private practice). Of course, it's chump change compared to a Division I football coach, but hey, this is America. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"liberal institutions like those of higher learning..."

WTF? Liberal institutions?? SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Was this meant for MONGO's page? PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Seemed like this was under discussion here. I'm surprised to see such institutions described as "liberal" in any sense. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean we do have a whole article on the subject Liberal bias in academia, I thought it was commonly known that as a whole colleges in the USA have a general liberal bias. As to why that would be, I am not going to touch that with a 10ft pole. PackMecEng (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Its not possible to reason with the unreasonable but kudos for trying.--MONGO 15:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean I do know that but it is absurd to push it to the point of higher learning institutes are automatically liberal/political Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like there's a POV fork ready for the scouring pad. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

But but but they have sources that say those things! WP:PRESERVE! and stuff and things... PackMecEng (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m confused over the question...???? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

So is the person who posed it. There is no cure so not wise to get our hopes up.--MONGO 16:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean if being liberal means having higher learning..I'll take that :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't. Some normal people resume normal lives and thinking after they get away from fantasy island and have to like pay taxes and keep the picket fence standing.--MONGO 16:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Response to Mongo's comment above "Even liberal institutions like those of higher learning pay based on going market rate." Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme all dressed up for a night out

–EEng

O mercy. The tag "liberal institutions" is confused and insupportable in almost any sense of those 2 words. If you would ask me, as a neutral observer of academia I would call it "feudal" rather than "liberal" and I rather think "institution" entails misplaced concreteness, notwithstanding all the concrete bricks and limestone. Its rather more a cultural artifact, and one that's routinely evolving and rather a valuable asset to man and beast. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Children, please...your hostess happens to be tri-partisan...liken it to (see this diff), to which the TP host responded by adding this. I duplicated it here as a treat for all the children. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Can it support 275 pounds of ornery MONGO? If so I want one in blue.--MONGO 17:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

For clarity...my references to trisexual and tripartisan means (jokingly) I'll tri (try) anything once. *lol* It probably works better spoken than it does written. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, editing here can be very trying. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not here, as in here on my TP, but here as in WP articles...right? ^{I hope.} Wouldn't want any guest on my TP to feel tried...although we can always leave that door open if desired. As I said before, I'll try anything once. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Right. (Although you attracted quite a crowd to this thread!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

**Recycle bin - rock, scissors, PAPER**

It's free education - and it's quality where it really counts. It makes me happy to partake in intelligent social intercourse - beats the hell out of commune-living in the late 60s which was a totally different kind of social intercourse. I remember back in the day when my folks had to pay (and pay) to get us a full set of Britannica's - and there was no arguing over the contents. I hope our readers appreciate the brilliant blend of perspectives they're getting when they read a WP article. How can anyone worth their salt not appreciate what goes into it? Just look at the many brilliant editors we have giving generously of their time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your folks shelled out for a biased source like that. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

They didn't go to waste...I made good use of them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That is lovely. Who was the President then? I'm guessing not Trump. SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Some actor...or does that refer to all presidents? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Terry-Thomas SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

How did you know the picture is of Terry Thomas in drag sporting a 🦊 fur to divert attention away from his mink 🧥 business? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Terence Hogan make over

Hi watching the changes are just incredible. What a genius you are. I am blown away and so grateful. I just can't believe how fantastic your work is. I did not think anyone would help me like this!!! I am glad the Greece picture went down as it was when he was very skinny and does not look like him really and I don't want it back but maybe at some point I can learn about uploading any of the photos I tried before. I think you might be still working on the page and just again anything I can do to say thank you I will. Well you have brightened up my day, thats for sure very best wishes, and Im sure Dad is shouting "Thank You Mate", from upstairs or downstairs!!! kareenzaKareenza (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, Kareenza, and saying thank you was more than enough - it wasn't even necessary. I found the story quite compelling. I'll be working on it little by little as time progresses. Because of your WP:COI, any suggestions you have should be discussed on the article TP. If you want to get my attention, you can simply WP:PING me when you comment. You are welcome to come here as well but I prefer to keep article discussions on the article TP. With regards to your photos, click on this link and read the email forms you need to submit to permissions when you upload the images. If what you have are snapshots taken by a family member or friend, then just get him/her to sign-off as the photographer who has agreed to release the images under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Also keep in mind that any work before 1978 that was published without a copyright notice fell into the public domain. Let me know if you need help uploading or have any further questions. Cheers!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you oh mighty one! all my photos are before 1978. If you get any time can you see the photos that were taken down they are all before 1978, but when I google some of them they are on google images with a daily mail caption as two are from my article that I wrote for them and I have copyright, so im not sure what to do there, these are four pics they deleted on wiki commons that I uploaded last week, i can choose many others from before 78 without copyright. Is there any way when this is finished that you would help me upload them, I am terrified as it started all the problems but in the end it was for the best thing as I got you!Sorry to be really thick but how do i post on article TP? God I am a dinasour!!! kareenzaKareenza (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

😂 You're too funny with the "mighty one". Ok, scan the photos you have so you'll have clean scans. Get them into your computer, go to your user page, and upload them using the upload file feature located under Tools in the left margin of your user page. During the upload, you'll need the approximate dates the images were taken, and check Public Domain as the license you're uploading under. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello i dont know how to thank you for everything. I had not really realised how much you had battled and stood up for this from the beginning and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I think others got involved unnecessarily and being naive i believed everything i was told. The Guardian sent me the copy of the obit if that would help. I have only just seen your kind message. Rehman came on board re photos he is a human dynamo like you!! He contacted the pics editor at the Mail re copyright on article and pics, they emailed him straight back that I have full ownership and copyright. I would like my step mum roz to have pics that she wants uploaded as she is very ill and wants to see the page before she gets much more ill. I have a release form to sign. It has been said that I was missled by someone in beginning, i am a bit traumatised by that whole bus and thought i was being helped but wasnt. My own stupid fault. If you have time would you stay with this till completion? Rehman is fixing up things wikimedia side. I feel very blessed to have you both and i probably didnt help myself but was ignorant about what people were saying and had started to give up but I think dad has a place in history and he and the rest of our family believe me have paid for his crimes one way or another. It would be good to show roz now in her eighties the old days and memories. So oh mighty one, if i can do anything please shout. Dads other best friend was getaway grand prix ecclestone driver Roy James who was a big part of our lives and in an article I have and a pic with dad and gt train robbers called Driven to Crime. Oh well better go before you fall asleep during this monologue. Thank you for rescuing me, not often i get a dude on a white horse to charge in, ps dont disappear :) kareenzaKareenza (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Kareenza (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)