Talk:Consciousness of guilt: Difference between revisions

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To editor Tuckerlieberman: The first seven citations are about this legal issue. The other twenty citations are specifically about one former President who still lives rent-free in the minds of many. Note how Valjean brazenly spammed user talk pages with an announcement about this screed. I am well aware of the political leanings of the average editor on this website, but I decry such shameful partisanship. We cannot write an actual encyclopedia when we tolerate such slant. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you're going to take it to deletion, or do you have other suggestions to improve the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: I removed the section about Trump before Tuckerlieberman reverted me. I'm not sure if AfD is the right path, yet. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked at the article's edit history before chiming in here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I see it a little differently.

The number of citations doesn't seem relevant to me. The section about Trump discusses a rumor, so that explains why those sentences are heavily sourced. Some types of information need more sourcing than others.

However, to me, the original length of the paragraphs about Trump seemed disproportionate. They had some unnecessary details (e.g., exactly what he is alleged to have done with the sex workers). Nonetheless, this does provide a clear real-life example of a certain type of deliberate misrepresentation and attention redirection (e.g., when someone is asked if he was at the scene when the incident happened, he says only that he was at the scene a different night). It effectively illustrates the article topic.

So, I shortened the section on Trump to focus on the type of lie. Take a look now and see if this is any better.

I wonder if the best thing to do is to entirely delete the section on Trump or, instead, to leave it and to add more examples. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuckerlieberman: Your edit is much better than the original though I prefer removing the section entirely because, as you can see from Valjean's user page and user talk page, the point of the article was the Trump section hence my accusation about COATRACK. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman I'm agnostic on whether to remove that section entirely. Perhaps some other people may want to chime in here? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, you have clearly formulated your objection as an assumption of bad faith and clear personal attack: Using an editors political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing their edits. You should be ashamed of yourself. Not only did you make a personal attack, then you protected Trump from mention. Not good, and not at all wikipedian.

I invited and welcomed improvements, and I'm not at all surprised at some reduction of that part. That's fine. (BTW, Trump didn't do anything "with" the hookers.) That anyone would even suggest total deletion of the Trump content is baffling. It's an excellent current and very notable example of the concept. In fact, most people probably learned of the concept from Comey's application of it, which was highly publicized. Deletion of highly publicized RS content is not what we do here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I am uncomfortable with the Trump example in this article. To me, it seems there is an agenda involved. And it makes an uncontroversial subject instead contentious. Is it worth it? I think Trump should be removed and perhaps replaced with another literary example or a historical figure.---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]