User talk:JohnStuartMill123
Inside VP Biden's linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor's ouster
[edit]Read this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Read this.https://nypost.com/2023/08/10/glenn-kessler-embarrasses-himself-and-the-washington-post-with-joe-biden-stenography-again/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons
- As a new participant in Wikipedia I randomly selected an initially politically charged topic to see for myself if there is true neutrality here. Directing me to a partisan publication as an answer to my legitimate request for neutrality in the Wikipedia article is disappointing to say the least. Being intellectually honest the “editor” reviewing my suggest edit would remove “falsely” given that teh current state of the discourse, and evidence, has neither established the veracity or falsity of the allegations of corruption leveled against then VP Biden. PLEASE DO BETTER. I want to admire this site. It is not starting out hat way. JohnStuartMill123 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you can see that your link is colored pink. That means something here. It is a very unreliable source. Read why at WP:RSP and look at the entry for the tabloid New York Post, which is known to publish falsehoods, conspiracy theories, outright fabrications, and junk "news". They have a huge agenda, and as with all Rupert Murdoch enterprises, it has nothing to do with real journalism, fact-checking, or truth. You need to stick to RS. That is the foundation of everything here, and using poor sources will make your structure crumble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
If you had read the source I provided, which is the very best source available (we value fact-checkers here), you would have understood why your comment was not received well. There are many things you do not understand about Wikipedia and about the political world. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wow. Valjean, the fact that your exchange with me is my first encounter with Wikipedia and you are an example as a Wikipedia top flight reviewer speaks volumes of what to expect as I continue to engage on other articles here. My reference to the New York Post was an answer to your reference to the partisan Washington Times. Your instructions for me to review a partisan source, has done little to respond to my critique of the use of the term “falsely” when the issue of Biden’s corruption is not settled. Your misdirection, obfuscation, nonresponsiveness, and now condescension, is strikingly pretentious and sad. JohnStuartMill123 (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The Washington Times is indeed partisan, and also generally not very reliable, unlike The Washington Post which I referenced. You're in for a rough, and likely short, ride around here, unless you are willing to learn. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Valjean thankyou for your thoughtful insights and guidance as I fumble my way along here. This exchange has been enlightening. Carry on my friend as you continue in your efforts to make Wikipedia a better source of information for the incorrigible likes of me. JohnStuartMill123 (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The Washington Times is indeed partisan, and also generally not very reliable, unlike The Washington Post which I referenced. You're in for a rough, and likely short, ride around here, unless you are willing to learn. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)