RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Oldest archives: 0001 -- 0002 -- 0003 -- 0004 -- 0005


[edit] European Court of Justice

The link about the ECJ overruling the UK's surveillance powers quips that Brexit would nullify this decision. Is this true? I was under the impression that Brexit wouldn't affect the UK's relationship to the European courts.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

the ecj is the highest court in the Eu, to rule on eu law. As far as i can tell, it will cease to have any standing in uk after brexit. You may be thinking of the european court of human rights which is an instrument of the council of europe, a seperate entity from the eu, and includes russia. It is no secret that may wants to leave the echj, and brexit probs makes that easier, but its no sure thing. Whats interesting about snoopers charter and the ecj is that the case was brought to tbe ecj with no sense of irony by arch brexiter david davis. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. I was confused because I saw the court referred to as the European Court of Justice which I assume, do to the name, that it wasn't connected to the EU just like how the ECHR isn't. This explains why others called it the EUCJ instead. It is too bad that the ruling may become void after Article 50 is enacted, whenever that is.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz Twitter story

I've moved this story to WIGO:blogosphere where it belongs. Please stop reverting this. We have separate WIGOs for separate things & it's tiresome to keep seeing blogosphere stuff posted here. Stories about who said what on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, blogs or other social media platforms belong in blogosphere/clogosphere as appropriate & this has always been the case, with the possible tenuous exception of stories about Donald Trump's tweets, given the bizarre situation of a US President Elect who uses Twitter as his primary means of communication. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I simply refer you to the introductory texts on the WIGO world and WIGO blogs pages:
Published news goes in WIGO:World. Commentaries and editorials go in WIGO:Blogs.

This is merely more than a "Twitter story". The link is not to Twitter. The link is to an event - or a series of events - which occurred on Twitter, as reported - not opined upon - by a major news outlet. Furthermore, as there is no expression of opinion in the article, there is no justification for its placement in WIGO blogs, which is why other contributors,including FCP, have removed it. Leave it alone. Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

If you deem seeing this link in WIGO news "tiresome", you could either, a) avert your eyes, or b) we could put it to a plebiscite.Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
"Blogosphere" is a catch-all term for blogs, forums & social media, including Twitter. Whether you link to the tweets themselves or what somebody else wrote about them is irrelevant & not an excuse to put them here. Check the WIGO archives: e.g. almost everything related to Gamergate went in blogosphere or clogosphere because it was coverage of online events (i.e. "what is going on in the blogosphere"). WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Check the WIGO archives: e.g. almost everything related to Gamergate went in blogosphere or clogosphere because it was coverage of online events (i.e. "what is going on in the blogosphere").

That is not a case for why this article belongs in the blogosphere. This is not an opinion piece and it is not from a blog. It is a report about an idiot saying something idiotic about Auschwitz and the Holocaust and the Auschwitz Memorial responding. Would it make any difference if the Memorial had responded via post or email? Would that make it worthy of WIGO: news? Furthermore, the article, as I keep pointing out, yet you keep ignoring, doesn’t contain the reporter's opinion. It is not to a blog post or an op-ed or an editorial. It's a news report, like a journalist saying, "so and so occurred today at 5:30 pm..." without editorialing and commenting on "so and so". So, your justification for removing the link from WIGO: news and moving it to WIGO:blogs is weak. Leave it alone. You can leave a copy on WIGO:blogs of you wish, though I agree with FCP and others that it doesn't belong there. By the way, have you read the article?If so, what justifies its presence in WIGO:blogs?Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
It's somebody making a fool of himself on Twitter, i.e. the blogosphere, which as I've said is a catch-all phrase for online interactions including social media, not purely blogs & editorials. Again: check what kinds of items in which WIGOs & their archives. You're insisting on putting it here based on your anally retentive reading of some words at the top of the page rather than the way everybody else has been using these pages for years. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm the one being anally retentive? Lol. Project much? The link is to a news report. Leave it. Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
A news report about somebody making a fool of himself on Twitter: literally what is going on in the blogosphere. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Why is the info-sorting such an important issue for you, Levi? CorruptUser (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Why are you singling me out for criticism? You're unfairly assuminy I'm the trangressor? Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Because Weaseloid has a point that stories on Twitter should be in WIGO Blogs. Why is that a Rubicon for you? CorruptUser (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
But this isn't a story on Twitter. It's a story on Huffpo about events on Twitter. Why is THAT such a rubicon for you? Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Because this fight is over something so unimportant that it's irritating. CorruptUser (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand your irritation about creating such a fuss over something so trivial. What I don't understand is why your ire is directed solely at me. You make it seem as though I am the only one making an issue of this. I didn't even start this topic.Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
You revert warred rather than let me move your post to a different WIGO & are trying to school editors who have been around a lot longer than you based on your own interpretation of WIGO rather than the longstanding ways the community at large are using these pages. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
"School editors"? Excuse me, but this disagreement has been between you and me. No one else. If I was trying to school anyone, (which I wasn't), it was you and just you. There is no plurality. Also, why are you waving your editorship about as if it is some kind of badge of infallibility. Are you above misinterpretation? Just because something is the norm does not mean it is correct. Besides, I am only playing by the communities rules as dictated on the WIGO pages, as quoted above. I am neither trying to school anyone nor invent new rules. Levi Ackerman (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that an outdated piece of text on a page is more important than what the community does (i.e. the norm), you're completely at odds with the Community Standards & site culture. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I've amended the page intros to clarify. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Per your amendments, this Guardian article reporting something Donald Trump said on Twitter, if it were to be posted on to RW today, would belong in WIGO:Blogs, because, per your wording, it is an article about "...social media posts". You can call it "tedious wikilawyering", (which is very mature, by the way), but I am just applying our rules as they are expressed. Maybe you ought to take some lessons in "wikilegislating"? 15:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Also,you know you're not supposed to apply new rules retroactively? That's just a universal norm. So, stop trying to move the article. Just move on, will you!Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not a "new rule". As I've said repeatedly, this is the way these pages have been used for years. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

1: I accidentally rollback'ed Weaseloid, then rollback'ed myself. 2: Everybody calm the fuck down. If there's fight about this, then maybe Twitter can go in both WIGOW and WIGOB, as the user who posted it decides? Yeah? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a link to Twitter. It's a link to an HuffPost article about something that happened on Twitter. Perhaps you already knew that. Perhaps you don't care. But when you say "maybe Twitter can go in both WIGOW and WIGOB", a casual observer might assume I linked to Twitter.Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
(EC) :"The user who posted it decides" just opens the door to everything being posted in World where it will get more views & votes, & there have been times it's been really cluttered with blogosphere stuff. So if I see something fairly newly posted that's in the wrong WIGO, I move it across. Plenty of editors do this. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of clogging up the WIGO, should stuff from TheIntercept go in WIGOW or WIGOB? It's basically a giant blog made up of a number of people, but at what point does a blog become a news source? CorruptUser (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A timely question and a good one. I would contend that it goes in WIGOW when it becomes factual - i.e. the writer isn't merely speculating and/or giving his or her opinion. The article re the Guardian's summary of the Assange article is a good example. I think it became a factual report once the Guardian, having seen Greenwald's article, made changes to the summary. That, combined with the interviewer's response to the summary and how the interview has been distorted and used for political gain, due to the Guardian's summary, makes it a report of factual events, as opposed to an editorial. However, the piece is obviously still coloured by Greenwald's own opinions. Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] So... let's talk about that ethics committee story

Is there any reason to do this other than to roll back ethics protections and organize witch hunts against the opposition? Any reason at all? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about the OCE's role & remit, but I think there are likely to be challenges of some sort over Trump's conflicts of interest once he comes into office, & maybe those of some of his appointees, so maybe it was a defensive move against that? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Something else I think we should also mention that Trump did not call actually them out. Hell, his a spokesperson Sean Spencer released a statement saying it was about that. Robert Costa of The Washington Post said that is was people calling there representatives that did it, https://twitter.com/costareportsRyantherebel (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting. After failing to close the ethics office, the GOP are now making its role in cabinet appointment background checks unmanageable & going ahead with appointments before these ethics checks are complete. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Hey editors, look out, a CNN article about something that happened on twitter! Do something!

Hey, thou most wise and most infallible editor, Weaseloid, shouldn't the CNN artcle, "House Republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics committee after Trump tweets", inserted in the WIGO: World page as "House Republicans back down", be in WIGO: Blogs, after all...

Commentaries and editorials go in WIGO:Blogs, as do blogs, YouTube videos, social media posts, and articles about any these.

The fact that that article, which is about a tweet, (it's in the headline), remains on WIGO: world is more reason for me to keep undoing attempts to move my Auschwitz article. Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Israel article

Why are you removing the Israel article?Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] What are

Daily Kos and Patheos links doing on this page? Don't they belong on WIGO:Blogs? ?? (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes - please move - David Gerard (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools