Datasets:

tingchih

/

EM

like 0

Dolly Parton publicly criticized Hillary Clinton and endorsed Donald Trump.

Neutral

On 12 September 2016, the disreputable clickbait American News web site published a misleading article reporting that renowned country singer Dolly Parton has 'trash(ed) Hillary Clinton in amazingly epic fashion': Dolly Parton has long been one of America's most legendary singing and songwriting talents. Until recently, she was fairly liberal, and a big supporter of Hillary Clinton. In a statement not long ago, Parton said she was inspired that a woman might be President for the first time in our nation's history. 'We're doing good,' she commented at the time. 'We got a woman that could go in the White House, so we've certainly come a long way in that respect.'Recently, Parton saw the light and realized that Hillary would be quite possible the worst person to be the champion for woman throughout the nation. She now understands that Hillary is a liar; she's as corrupt as they come. Recently, Parton saw the light and realized that Hillary would be quite possible the worst person to be the champion for woman throughout the nation. She now understands that Hillary is a liar; she's as corrupt as they come. In a more recent interview, she called Hillary 'nuts' and that her campaign has been 'just crazy.' The American News article used portions of a real interview Parton gave to CNN on 26 August 2016, presenting quotes from that interview inaccurately and out of context. For instance, Parton didn't say that Hillary was 'nuts' and that her campaign was 'just crazy.' What the singer actually said was that she thought both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were 'nuts' and that the entire presidential campaign had been 'crazy': Country music legend Dolly Parton might be undecided on whom to back in the presidential race, but there's one thing she's certain of. 'It's the greatest show on television right now,' she told CNN's Brooke Baldwin, laughing, in an interview. The 70-year-old 'Jolene' singer, who embarks on a 60-date North American tour to support her new album, 'Pure and Simple,' also didn't hold back when asked about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Q: 'Where do you stand on this election?' A: 'I just don't know. It's just the greatest show on television right now. You can't not watch it, even if it's Fox television or CNN or whatever you're watching. But it's just crazy, right now I'm just not sure. It's the biggest reality show out there. So I don't know where we're going to land, but I think they're both nuts.' Joking that 'it's like watching the OJ Simpson trial,' Parton said 'You just believe whoever's up next. Whoever testified last is who you believe.' Dolly Parton on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: 'I think they're both nuts.' https://t.co/sD2OiPw5ZE https://t.co/Ynw2VZjR4G - CNN (@CNN) August 26, 2016 The country legend opined that overall, we should focus on more important issues: 'Let's talk about what we really need - taking care of us. I think people just want to have a feeling of security. It's just like political terrorism right now, they got us all scared to death about everything.'Dan Evon dolly parton Donald Trump hillary clinton Sources Ellefson, Lindsey. 'Dolly Parton Tells CNN's Baldwin That Trump and Clinton Are 'Both Nuts'.' Mediate. 26 August 2016. King, Alexandra. 'Dolly Parton on 2016 candidates: 'I Think they're Both Nuts.'' CNN. 26 August 2016.

nan

Hillary Clinton proposed assassinating Julian Assange via drone strike to silence WikiLeaks.

Neutral

On 2 October 2016, the web site True Pundit published an article reporting that Hillary Clinton had supposedly attempted to order a drone strike on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in order to 'silence' that organization's efforts: 'Can't we just drone this guy?' Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, 'walking around' freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States ... Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton's top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled 'an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.' 'Nonlegal strategies.' How did that phrasing make it into an official State Department email subject line dealing with solving Wikileaks and Assange? Why would the secretary of state and her inner circle be discussing any 'nonlegal strategies' for anything whatsoever? Against anyone? Shouldn't all the strategies discussed by the country's top diplomat be strictly legal only? And is the email a smoking gun to confirm Clinton was actually serious about pursuing an obvious 'nonlegal strategy' proposal to allegedly assassinate Assange? Numerous attempts were made to try and interview and decipher Slaughter's choice of email wording, however, she could not be reached for comment. Insiders said Slaughter is keeping a 'low profile' in Princeton, NJ until she is nominated for a position in Clinton's cabinet if the Democrat is elected in November. Likewise, True Pundit attempted to contact Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan for their perspectives on this story. None commented on the record. The claim might not have seemed so incredible to some readers, as Assange himself had previously voiced the possibility of his being assassinated by drone, although even in his imaginings the chances of such an action (initiated by the CIA, not by Hillary Clinton) were not likely: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange fears he will be sent to the United States, where he could face the death penalty, and even worries that he will be targeted by a CIA drone. Assange, who faces extradition to Sweden on rape charges and has been holed up at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, said in an interview with The Times Magazine that things have become so dangerous that he cannot even poke his head out of the embassy's balcony doors. 'There are security issues with being on the balcony; there have been bomb threats and assassination threats from various people.' On the possibility of being 'droned' by the CIA, Assange told the magazine: 'I'm a white guy. Unless I convert to Islam, it's not that likely that I'll be droned, but we have seen things creeping toward that.' First of all, the only cited source documenting that Hillary Clinton had ever suggested (even in jest) that a drone strike could take out Julian Assange was 'sources at the State Department,' a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification. Second, the claim that Hillary Clinton or her aides had either hinted or directly ordered remote assassination of Assange in November 2010 focused on a questionable interpretation of the terms 'legal and nonlegal strategies' that appeared in the subject line of e-mails sent by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State and released via WikiLeaks' first searchable Hillary Clinton e-mail archive in March 2016. The e-mails in question purportedly followed Clinton's proposing that Julian Assange be targeted by a drone strike: However, the text of those e-mails (located here and here) neither said nor implied anything of the sort: From: Mills, Cheryl D Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:36 AM To: Slaughter, Anne-Marie; H Cc: Abedin, Huma; Sullivan, Jacob J Subject: Re: an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks Following this morning's meetings I activated my four legal eagles on the SP staff - Peter Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms not only of his knowledge but also his sensitivity to how anything we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy. AM Anne-Marie Slaughter Director of Policy Planning U.S. Department of State The thrust of True Pundit's article hinged almost entirely on claiming that the term 'nonlegal' essentially means the same thing as 'illegal,' and much of the article's content delved into discussing why illegal methods for dealing with a WikiLeaks issue would be improper. However, 'nonlegal' also bears a distinctly different meaning than 'illegal'; the former can be used to distinguish discussions dealing with the law and legalities from discussions that don't involve legal matters: Moreover, Anne-Marie Slaughter's only reference to 'nonlegal' methods were some 'very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy' (included in an unavailable appended memo). Unless 'public diplomacy' is reasonable code for 'drone strike,' the most logical reading of the e-mail chain would be that the meeting referenced in the e-mail explored what legal actions could be taken to minimize damage from WikiLeaks, with a secondary focus on 'nonlegal' (i.e., not related to law enforcement or litigation) approaches such as diplomacy and public relations. On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn't 'recall any joke ... [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke' Hillary Clinton, eyes downcast, stammering: If I talked about droning Julian #Assange, 'it would have been a joke.' pic.twitter.com/MnALounJo0 - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 4,

nan

Hillary Clinton proposed assassinating Julian Assange via drone strike to silence WikiLeaks.

Neutral

On 2 October 2016, the web site True Pundit published an article reporting that Hillary Clinton had supposedly attempted to order a drone strike on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in order to 'silence' that organization's efforts: 'Can't we just drone this guy?' Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, 'walking around' freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States ... Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton's top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled 'an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.' 'Nonlegal strategies.' How did that phrasing make it into an official State Department email subject line dealing with solving Wikileaks and Assange? Why would the secretary of state and her inner circle be discussing any 'nonlegal strategies' for anything whatsoever? Against anyone? Shouldn't all the strategies discussed by the country's top diplomat be strictly legal only? And is the email a smoking gun to confirm Clinton was actually serious about pursuing an obvious 'nonlegal strategy' proposal to allegedly assassinate Assange? Numerous attempts were made to try and interview and decipher Slaughter's choice of email wording, however, she could not be reached for comment. Insiders said Slaughter is keeping a 'low profile' in Princeton, NJ until she is nominated for a position in Clinton's cabinet if the Democrat is elected in November. Likewise, True Pundit attempted to contact Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan for their perspectives on this story. None commented on the record. The claim might not have seemed so incredible to some readers, as Assange himself had previously voiced the possibility of his being assassinated by drone, although even in his imaginings the chances of such an action (initiated by the CIA, not by Hillary Clinton) were not likely: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange fears he will be sent to the United States, where he could face the death penalty, and even worries that he will be targeted by a CIA drone. Assange, who faces extradition to Sweden on rape charges and has been holed up at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, said in an interview with The Times Magazine that things have become so dangerous that he cannot even poke his head out of the embassy's balcony doors. 'There are security issues with being on the balcony; there have been bomb threats and assassination threats from various people.' On the possibility of being 'droned' by the CIA, Assange told the magazine: 'I'm a white guy. Unless I convert to Islam, it's not that likely that I'll be droned, but we have seen things creeping toward that.' First of all, the only cited source documenting that Hillary Clinton had ever suggested (even in jest) that a drone strike could take out Julian Assange was 'sources at the State Department,' a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification. Second, the claim that Hillary Clinton or her aides had either hinted or directly ordered remote assassination of Assange in November 2010 focused on a questionable interpretation of the terms 'legal and nonlegal strategies' that appeared in the subject line of e-mails sent by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State and released via WikiLeaks' first searchable Hillary Clinton e-mail archive in March 2016. The e-mails in question purportedly followed Clinton's proposing that Julian Assange be targeted by a drone strike: However, the text of those e-mails (located here and here) neither said nor implied anything of the sort: From: Mills, Cheryl D Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:36 AM To: Slaughter, Anne-Marie; H Cc: Abedin, Huma; Sullivan, Jacob J Subject: Re: an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks Following this morning's meetings I activated my four legal eagles on the SP staff - Peter Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms not only of his knowledge but also his sensitivity to how anything we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy. AM Anne-Marie Slaughter Director of Policy Planning U.S. Department of State The thrust of True Pundit's article hinged almost entirely on claiming that the term 'nonlegal' essentially means the same thing as 'illegal,' and much of the article's content delved into discussing why illegal methods for dealing with a WikiLeaks issue would be improper. However, 'nonlegal' also bears a distinctly different meaning than 'illegal'; the former can be used to distinguish discussions dealing with the law and legalities from discussions that don't involve legal matters: Moreover, Anne-Marie Slaughter's only reference to 'nonlegal' methods were some 'very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy' (included in an unavailable appended memo). Unless 'public diplomacy' is reasonable code for 'drone strike,' the most logical reading of the e-mail chain would be that the meeting referenced in the e-mail explored what legal actions could be taken to minimize damage from WikiLeaks, with a secondary focus on 'nonlegal' (i.e., not related to law enforcement or litigation) approaches such as diplomacy and public relations. On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn't 'recall any joke ... [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke' Hillary Clinton, eyes downcast, stammering: If I talked about droning Julian #Assange, 'it would have been a joke.' pic.twitter.com/MnALounJo0 - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 4,

nan

Hillary Clinton proposed assassinating Julian Assange via drone strike to silence WikiLeaks.

Neutral

On 2 October 2016, the web site True Pundit published an article reporting that Hillary Clinton had supposedly attempted to order a drone strike on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in order to 'silence' that organization's efforts: 'Can't we just drone this guy?' Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, 'walking around' freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States ... Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton's top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled 'an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.' 'Nonlegal strategies.' How did that phrasing make it into an official State Department email subject line dealing with solving Wikileaks and Assange? Why would the secretary of state and her inner circle be discussing any 'nonlegal strategies' for anything whatsoever? Against anyone? Shouldn't all the strategies discussed by the country's top diplomat be strictly legal only? And is the email a smoking gun to confirm Clinton was actually serious about pursuing an obvious 'nonlegal strategy' proposal to allegedly assassinate Assange? Numerous attempts were made to try and interview and decipher Slaughter's choice of email wording, however, she could not be reached for comment. Insiders said Slaughter is keeping a 'low profile' in Princeton, NJ until she is nominated for a position in Clinton's cabinet if the Democrat is elected in November. Likewise, True Pundit attempted to contact Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan for their perspectives on this story. None commented on the record. The claim might not have seemed so incredible to some readers, as Assange himself had previously voiced the possibility of his being assassinated by drone, although even in his imaginings the chances of such an action (initiated by the CIA, not by Hillary Clinton) were not likely: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange fears he will be sent to the United States, where he could face the death penalty, and even worries that he will be targeted by a CIA drone. Assange, who faces extradition to Sweden on rape charges and has been holed up at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, said in an interview with The Times Magazine that things have become so dangerous that he cannot even poke his head out of the embassy's balcony doors. 'There are security issues with being on the balcony; there have been bomb threats and assassination threats from various people.' On the possibility of being 'droned' by the CIA, Assange told the magazine: 'I'm a white guy. Unless I convert to Islam, it's not that likely that I'll be droned, but we have seen things creeping toward that.' First of all, the only cited source documenting that Hillary Clinton had ever suggested (even in jest) that a drone strike could take out Julian Assange was 'sources at the State Department,' a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification. Second, the claim that Hillary Clinton or her aides had either hinted or directly ordered remote assassination of Assange in November 2010 focused on a questionable interpretation of the terms 'legal and nonlegal strategies' that appeared in the subject line of e-mails sent by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State and released via WikiLeaks' first searchable Hillary Clinton e-mail archive in March 2016. The e-mails in question purportedly followed Clinton's proposing that Julian Assange be targeted by a drone strike: However, the text of those e-mails (located here and here) neither said nor implied anything of the sort: From: Mills, Cheryl D Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:36 AM To: Slaughter, Anne-Marie; H Cc: Abedin, Huma; Sullivan, Jacob J Subject: Re: an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks Following this morning's meetings I activated my four legal eagles on the SP staff - Peter Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms not only of his knowledge but also his sensitivity to how anything we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy. AM Anne-Marie Slaughter Director of Policy Planning U.S. Department of State The thrust of True Pundit's article hinged almost entirely on claiming that the term 'nonlegal' essentially means the same thing as 'illegal,' and much of the article's content delved into discussing why illegal methods for dealing with a WikiLeaks issue would be improper. However, 'nonlegal' also bears a distinctly different meaning than 'illegal'; the former can be used to distinguish discussions dealing with the law and legalities from discussions that don't involve legal matters: Moreover, Anne-Marie Slaughter's only reference to 'nonlegal' methods were some 'very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy' (included in an unavailable appended memo). Unless 'public diplomacy' is reasonable code for 'drone strike,' the most logical reading of the e-mail chain would be that the meeting referenced in the e-mail explored what legal actions could be taken to minimize damage from WikiLeaks, with a secondary focus on 'nonlegal' (i.e., not related to law enforcement or litigation) approaches such as diplomacy and public relations. On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn't 'recall any joke ... [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke' Hillary Clinton, eyes downcast, stammering: If I talked about droning Julian #Assange, 'it would have been a joke.' pic.twitter.com/MnALounJo0 - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 4,

nan

Hillary Clinton proposed assassinating Julian Assange via drone strike to silence WikiLeaks.

Neutral

On 2 October 2016, the web site True Pundit published an article reporting that Hillary Clinton had supposedly attempted to order a drone strike on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in order to 'silence' that organization's efforts: 'Can't we just drone this guy?' Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, 'walking around' freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States ... Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton's top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled 'an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.' 'Nonlegal strategies.' How did that phrasing make it into an official State Department email subject line dealing with solving Wikileaks and Assange? Why would the secretary of state and her inner circle be discussing any 'nonlegal strategies' for anything whatsoever? Against anyone? Shouldn't all the strategies discussed by the country's top diplomat be strictly legal only? And is the email a smoking gun to confirm Clinton was actually serious about pursuing an obvious 'nonlegal strategy' proposal to allegedly assassinate Assange? Numerous attempts were made to try and interview and decipher Slaughter's choice of email wording, however, she could not be reached for comment. Insiders said Slaughter is keeping a 'low profile' in Princeton, NJ until she is nominated for a position in Clinton's cabinet if the Democrat is elected in November. Likewise, True Pundit attempted to contact Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan for their perspectives on this story. None commented on the record. The claim might not have seemed so incredible to some readers, as Assange himself had previously voiced the possibility of his being assassinated by drone, although even in his imaginings the chances of such an action (initiated by the CIA, not by Hillary Clinton) were not likely: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange fears he will be sent to the United States, where he could face the death penalty, and even worries that he will be targeted by a CIA drone. Assange, who faces extradition to Sweden on rape charges and has been holed up at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, said in an interview with The Times Magazine that things have become so dangerous that he cannot even poke his head out of the embassy's balcony doors. 'There are security issues with being on the balcony; there have been bomb threats and assassination threats from various people.' On the possibility of being 'droned' by the CIA, Assange told the magazine: 'I'm a white guy. Unless I convert to Islam, it's not that likely that I'll be droned, but we have seen things creeping toward that.' First of all, the only cited source documenting that Hillary Clinton had ever suggested (even in jest) that a drone strike could take out Julian Assange was 'sources at the State Department,' a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification. Second, the claim that Hillary Clinton or her aides had either hinted or directly ordered remote assassination of Assange in November 2010 focused on a questionable interpretation of the terms 'legal and nonlegal strategies' that appeared in the subject line of e-mails sent by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State and released via WikiLeaks' first searchable Hillary Clinton e-mail archive in March 2016. The e-mails in question purportedly followed Clinton's proposing that Julian Assange be targeted by a drone strike: However, the text of those e-mails (located here and here) neither said nor implied anything of the sort: From: Mills, Cheryl D Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:36 AM To: Slaughter, Anne-Marie; H Cc: Abedin, Huma; Sullivan, Jacob J Subject: Re: an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks Following this morning's meetings I activated my four legal eagles on the SP staff - Peter Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms not only of his knowledge but also his sensitivity to how anything we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy. AM Anne-Marie Slaughter Director of Policy Planning U.S. Department of State The thrust of True Pundit's article hinged almost entirely on claiming that the term 'nonlegal' essentially means the same thing as 'illegal,' and much of the article's content delved into discussing why illegal methods for dealing with a WikiLeaks issue would be improper. However, 'nonlegal' also bears a distinctly different meaning than 'illegal'; the former can be used to distinguish discussions dealing with the law and legalities from discussions that don't involve legal matters: Moreover, Anne-Marie Slaughter's only reference to 'nonlegal' methods were some 'very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy' (included in an unavailable appended memo). Unless 'public diplomacy' is reasonable code for 'drone strike,' the most logical reading of the e-mail chain would be that the meeting referenced in the e-mail explored what legal actions could be taken to minimize damage from WikiLeaks, with a secondary focus on 'nonlegal' (i.e., not related to law enforcement or litigation) approaches such as diplomacy and public relations. On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn't 'recall any joke ... [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke' Hillary Clinton, eyes downcast, stammering: If I talked about droning Julian #Assange, 'it would have been a joke.' pic.twitter.com/MnALounJo0 - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 4,

nan

Photographs show a new joystick-controlled Mercedes-Benz SCL600 automobile.

Neutral

Images of a futuristic 'new Mercedes-Benz SCL600' automobile - including technical innovations such as a joystick in place of a steering wheel, a video monitor in place of a rear-view mirror, and swiveling gull-wing doors - are genuine photographs of a real car, but that car was constructed as a research vehicle, not as something to be made available for purchase by consumers (although some of its features may have been, or soon may be, incorporated into commercially-available models), and it isn't really 'new' (in a technological sense), as it was introduced back in 1996: The new Benz - very different ... really different! This is the new Mercedes Benz SCL600 This car is really different. That's not what is different about it. That either. ... and now for the 'really different' part: No steering wheel, you drive it with a joystick. No pedals either. Can you drive with a joystick? Your kids and grandkids probably can. The influence of video games in our lives has really arrived, wouldn't you say? The above-displayed photos are pictures of DaimlerChrysler's F 200 Imagination concept study, produced by the Mercedes-Benz design team and unveiled at the Paris Motor Show in 1996 to show off 'groundbreaking systems for improving safety and comfort in passenger cars' and demonstrate 'just how technical innovations could open up new avenues for the styling of future top-of-the-range cars.' The full DaimlerChrysler press release described the vehicle thusly: Vehicle: F 200 Imagination Introduced in: 1996 Where: Paris Motor Show Goals: Testing of new ergonomics concepts based on drive-by-wire technology; cockpit design Drive: Four-stroke spark-ignition engine, 12 cylinders, 6.0 liters displacement, 290 kW (394 hp), rear-wheel drive, 5-speed electronically controlled automatic transmission Technical highlights: Sidesticks instead of a steering wheel: drive-by-wire o Forward-looking driving dynamics control o Active Body Control (ABC) o Headlight system featuring variable light distribution o Production launch as bi-xenon headlights with active light system in the Mercedes-Benz E-Class (W 211) o Video cameras in place of a rearview mirror o Electro-transparent panoramic glass roof: Production launch in 2002 in the Maybach 62 o Swiveling gullwing doors: Production launch in 2003 in the Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren o Voice recognition for mobile phone: Production launch in 1996 under the name LINGUATRONIC in the Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W 140) Does the car of the future still have a steering wheel and foot-operated controls? The Mercedes-Benz F 200 Imagination, presented at the 1996 Paris Motor Show, serves to test a new ergonomics concept and is the product of the joint efforts of engineers and designers. Sidesticks - little joysticks in the doors and the center console for steering and braking - replace the steering wheel. This is impossible without electronic assistance, and so the technology is called drive-by-wire. Where until now exclusively mechanical elements have existed which are directly activated by pulses of force emanating from the driver, these are now linked with electric and hydraulic actuators whose desired actions are determined by electronic pulses. If the driver pushes the sidestick forward, the F 200 Imagination accelerates. If he moves the lever to the right or left, the vehicle steers to the right or left. If he pulls the lever back, the vehicle brakes and, if desired, after stopping drives in reverse. To get a little relief the driver can switch the system to the front seat passenger and his sidesticks. Drive-by-wire is a technical solution entailing consequences - for the interior, for example. If there is no more steering wheel and no more pedals, the passengers have more space and thus more comfort. It also serves safety since the cockpit and the footwell can be designed completely different. The F 200 Imagination embodies the thoroughgoing networking of electronic systems. One result is its advanced driving dynamics control. The electronics recognize the driver's commands as requests for a certain driving state - accelerate, brake, steer, reverse - and decide in a flash how to comply with the commands in the best and safest manner. This is situational in nature because the computer utilizes the information of various sensors which tell it the road speed, wheel revolutions, engine revolutions, road condition and body motions. Based on this data, the computer decides, for example, how sharply the wheels should be angled during cornering or what engine speed is appropriate for driving on a wet road. The system is interlinked with the Active Body Control (ABC). Even when the going gets risky, the electronics keep the car safely on course through lightning-fast intervention in steering, braking, engine or transmission management and chassis control. The driver can fully utilize the technical capabilities of his car without transgressing the physical limits - a genuine advantage for safety. The electronically controlled rear spoiler system of the F 200 Imagination also assists him at this, setting itself upright in a flash and acting as a drag for better deceleration when an emergency braking situation is detected. The F 200 Imagination research car presents further innovative technology. For example, the headlights featuring variable light distribution: Six individual reflectors in each module, each with a separate bulb, are switched on and off depending on situation and speed in order to provide optimal light for driving at all times without blinding oncoming traffic. In curves, the light follows the wheel angle set by the driver, enhancing safety for night-time driving. At high speeds on superhighways an additional spot reflector is engaged to better illuminate the roadway far ahead. Innovations at the rear end too: the very compact taillight unit incorporates nine separate functions. The inconspicuous turn signal is a slender, arched neon tube distinguished by high luminous power and long life. Safety is always stressed by Mercedes-Benz, as demonstrated in the F 200 Imagination by the first-ever window airbag, which inflates itself across the side walls and considerably reduces the risk of head injuries in side crashes and rollovers. Since the coupe study does not have a conventional steering wheel, the front airbags are incorporated in a kneepad underneath the dashboard. Instead of conventional rearview mirrors the experts employ a video system with five permanently installed minicameras. Four of them are discreetly concealed in the roof frame struts on each side of the car and, out on the road, constantly have an eye on the areas next to and behind the F 200 Imagination. The fifth camera is in the rear bumper and automatically switches on when the vehicle backs up. The images appear on various monitors in the vehicle interior where the conventional mirrors otherwise would be located. In passing, so to speak, the F 200 Imagination also showed what a large, modern coupe might look like - heralding essential design features of the Mercedes-Benz CL which debuted in 1999. The F 200 Imagination has a transparent roof to flood the interior with light. Its special feature: the electro-transparent glass can be darkened at the push of a button to avoid excessive heating of the interior due to strong insulation. The glass has an intermediate layer, a liquid crystal film made of electrically conductive plastic. Electric current causes its crystals to array themselves so that the glass is transparent. In the meantime, this roof can be purchased in a car built by DaimlerChrysler: the Maybach 62. In the sum of its characteristics, the F 200 Imagination is a pioneering research vehicle, particularly its electronics, which enable new concepts and will play a bigger role in future cars. Of course, they must be subjected to intensive testing before they go into production. The F 200 Imagination played an important part in this and was forerunner of a Mercedes-Benz SL of the R 129 series that was equipped with electronic steering and sidesticks for test purposes in 1998 and thoroughly road-tested. Some of the findings: steering, braking and accelerating using a sidestick do require one to learn to think differently, but open up new dimensions in respect of driving dynamics, ride comfort and handling safety. The steering ratio and steering forces can be made variable and adapted to the particular situation - differently for parking than for negotiating a fast curve. To brake, the foot no longer has to be moved from the gas pedal to the brake pedal, so that the driver can respond more quickly. DaimlerChrysler has continued experimenting along these lines with the three-wheeled F 300 Life-Jet, the F 400 Carving two-seater, and the F 500 Mind four-door sedan. Additional information: More photos of the F 200 Imagination

nan

Donald Trump's father was arrested following a Ku Klux Klan-related altercation in 1927.

Neutral

On 9 September 2015 the BoingBoing web site published an article that referenced an archived New York Times piece from 1927, one which reported that President Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump had been arrested in connection with a KKK event: According to a New York Times article published in June 1927, a man with the name and address of Donald Trump's father was arraigned after Klan members attacked cops in Queens, N.Y. In 1927, Donald Trump's father would have been 21 years old, and not yet a well-known figure. Multiple sources report his residence at the time - and throughout his life - at the same address. To be clear, this is not proof that Trump senior - who would later go on to become a millionaire real estate developer - was a member of the Ku Klux Klan or even in attendance at the event. Despite sharing lawyers with the other men, it's conceivable that he may have been an innocent bystander, falsely named, or otherwise the victim of mistaken identity during or following a chaotic event. A person answering calls at the N.Y.C. Police Department's Records Section said that arrest reports dating that far back were not available in any form. BoingBoing included a copy of the New York Times article, with the source material available behind a paywall on the New York Times' web-based archive. That article reported a May 1927 'free-for-all battle' involving 100 policemen and 1,000 Klansmen in Jamaica, Queens: The elder Trump's name appeared once in the article, at the end of a portion headed 'Prisoners are Arraigned.' Details about charges filed against other individuals were included, but Trump was simply said to have been 'discharged' (with no further information about his overall involvement or lack thereof): As BoingBoing stated, the information available in the article made it difficult to figure out whether Trump's father was directly involved in the melee or was simply a bystander who coincidentally found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Other persons were charged with various infractions ranging from felonious assault to disorderly behavior, but Trump wasn't mentioned as having been cited for even minor criminal charges. According to BoingBoing, New York City no longer holds any information about arrests dating as far back as 1927, making it impossible to independently verify the original Times report. On 22 September 2015, the New York Times published an interview with Donald Trump, a transcript of which was prefaced with the following: Mr. Trump's barrage of answers - his sudden denial of a fact he had moments before confirmed; his repeatedly noting that no charges were filed against his father in connection with the incident he had just repeatedly denied; and his denigration of the news organization that brought the incident to light as a 'little website' - shows his pasta-against-the-wall approach to beating down inconvenient story lines. That interview also included the following exchange on the subject of Fred Trump's arrest: Q. Have you seen this story about police arresting a Fred Trump who lived at that Devonshire address in 1927 after a Ku Klux Klan rally turned violent? A. Totally false. We lived on Wareham. The Devonshire - I know there is a road Devonshire but I don't think my father ever lived on Devonshire. Q. The Census shows that he lived there with your mother there. But regardless, you never heard about that story? A. It never happened. And by the way, I saw that it was one little website that said it. It never happened. And they said there were no charges, no nothing. It's unfair to mention it, to be honest, because there were no charges. They said there were charges against other people, but there were absolutely no charges, totally false ... Somebody showed me that website - it was a little website and somebody did that. By the way, did you notice that there were no charges? Well, if there are no charges that means it shouldn't be mentioned ... Because my father, there were no charges against him, I don't know about the other people involved. But there were zero charges against him. So assuming it was him - I don't even think it was him, I never even heard about it. So it's really not fair to mention. It never happened. The author of the piece wrote that Trump revisited the topic 'unprompted,' interjecting to say that: And by the way, my father was not involved, was never charged and I never even heard this before. What? It comes out on a website and you are going to write it on The New York Times? It shouldn't be written because it never happened, No. 1. And No. 2, there was nobody charged. While it's possible the elder Trump attended the event along with KKK supporters and Klansmen, it's also possible he was minding his own business in his own neighborhood and got swept up by police after unknowingly finding himself in the middle of an enormous brawl.

nan

Donald Trump's father was arrested following a Ku Klux Klan-related altercation in 1927.

Neutral

On 9 September 2015 the BoingBoing web site published an article that referenced an archived New York Times piece from 1927, one which reported that President Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump had been arrested in connection with a KKK event: According to a New York Times article published in June 1927, a man with the name and address of Donald Trump's father was arraigned after Klan members attacked cops in Queens, N.Y. In 1927, Donald Trump's father would have been 21 years old, and not yet a well-known figure. Multiple sources report his residence at the time - and throughout his life - at the same address. To be clear, this is not proof that Trump senior - who would later go on to become a millionaire real estate developer - was a member of the Ku Klux Klan or even in attendance at the event. Despite sharing lawyers with the other men, it's conceivable that he may have been an innocent bystander, falsely named, or otherwise the victim of mistaken identity during or following a chaotic event. A person answering calls at the N.Y.C. Police Department's Records Section said that arrest reports dating that far back were not available in any form. BoingBoing included a copy of the New York Times article, with the source material available behind a paywall on the New York Times' web-based archive. That article reported a May 1927 'free-for-all battle' involving 100 policemen and 1,000 Klansmen in Jamaica, Queens: The elder Trump's name appeared once in the article, at the end of a portion headed 'Prisoners are Arraigned.' Details about charges filed against other individuals were included, but Trump was simply said to have been 'discharged' (with no further information about his overall involvement or lack thereof): As BoingBoing stated, the information available in the article made it difficult to figure out whether Trump's father was directly involved in the melee or was simply a bystander who coincidentally found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Other persons were charged with various infractions ranging from felonious assault to disorderly behavior, but Trump wasn't mentioned as having been cited for even minor criminal charges. According to BoingBoing, New York City no longer holds any information about arrests dating as far back as 1927, making it impossible to independently verify the original Times report. On 22 September 2015, the New York Times published an interview with Donald Trump, a transcript of which was prefaced with the following: Mr. Trump's barrage of answers - his sudden denial of a fact he had moments before confirmed; his repeatedly noting that no charges were filed against his father in connection with the incident he had just repeatedly denied; and his denigration of the news organization that brought the incident to light as a 'little website' - shows his pasta-against-the-wall approach to beating down inconvenient story lines. That interview also included the following exchange on the subject of Fred Trump's arrest: Q. Have you seen this story about police arresting a Fred Trump who lived at that Devonshire address in 1927 after a Ku Klux Klan rally turned violent? A. Totally false. We lived on Wareham. The Devonshire - I know there is a road Devonshire but I don't think my father ever lived on Devonshire. Q. The Census shows that he lived there with your mother there. But regardless, you never heard about that story? A. It never happened. And by the way, I saw that it was one little website that said it. It never happened. And they said there were no charges, no nothing. It's unfair to mention it, to be honest, because there were no charges. They said there were charges against other people, but there were absolutely no charges, totally false ... Somebody showed me that website - it was a little website and somebody did that. By the way, did you notice that there were no charges? Well, if there are no charges that means it shouldn't be mentioned ... Because my father, there were no charges against him, I don't know about the other people involved. But there were zero charges against him. So assuming it was him - I don't even think it was him, I never even heard about it. So it's really not fair to mention. It never happened. The author of the piece wrote that Trump revisited the topic 'unprompted,' interjecting to say that: And by the way, my father was not involved, was never charged and I never even heard this before. What? It comes out on a website and you are going to write it on The New York Times? It shouldn't be written because it never happened, No. 1. And No. 2, there was nobody charged. While it's possible the elder Trump attended the event along with KKK supporters and Klansmen, it's also possible he was minding his own business in his own neighborhood and got swept up by police after unknowingly finding himself in the middle of an enormous brawl.

nan

Donald Trump's father was arrested following a Ku Klux Klan-related altercation in 1927.

Neutral

On 9 September 2015 the BoingBoing web site published an article that referenced an archived New York Times piece from 1927, one which reported that President Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump had been arrested in connection with a KKK event: According to a New York Times article published in June 1927, a man with the name and address of Donald Trump's father was arraigned after Klan members attacked cops in Queens, N.Y. In 1927, Donald Trump's father would have been 21 years old, and not yet a well-known figure. Multiple sources report his residence at the time - and throughout his life - at the same address. To be clear, this is not proof that Trump senior - who would later go on to become a millionaire real estate developer - was a member of the Ku Klux Klan or even in attendance at the event. Despite sharing lawyers with the other men, it's conceivable that he may have been an innocent bystander, falsely named, or otherwise the victim of mistaken identity during or following a chaotic event. A person answering calls at the N.Y.C. Police Department's Records Section said that arrest reports dating that far back were not available in any form. BoingBoing included a copy of the New York Times article, with the source material available behind a paywall on the New York Times' web-based archive. That article reported a May 1927 'free-for-all battle' involving 100 policemen and 1,000 Klansmen in Jamaica, Queens: The elder Trump's name appeared once in the article, at the end of a portion headed 'Prisoners are Arraigned.' Details about charges filed against other individuals were included, but Trump was simply said to have been 'discharged' (with no further information about his overall involvement or lack thereof): As BoingBoing stated, the information available in the article made it difficult to figure out whether Trump's father was directly involved in the melee or was simply a bystander who coincidentally found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Other persons were charged with various infractions ranging from felonious assault to disorderly behavior, but Trump wasn't mentioned as having been cited for even minor criminal charges. According to BoingBoing, New York City no longer holds any information about arrests dating as far back as 1927, making it impossible to independently verify the original Times report. On 22 September 2015, the New York Times published an interview with Donald Trump, a transcript of which was prefaced with the following: Mr. Trump's barrage of answers - his sudden denial of a fact he had moments before confirmed; his repeatedly noting that no charges were filed against his father in connection with the incident he had just repeatedly denied; and his denigration of the news organization that brought the incident to light as a 'little website' - shows his pasta-against-the-wall approach to beating down inconvenient story lines. That interview also included the following exchange on the subject of Fred Trump's arrest: Q. Have you seen this story about police arresting a Fred Trump who lived at that Devonshire address in 1927 after a Ku Klux Klan rally turned violent? A. Totally false. We lived on Wareham. The Devonshire - I know there is a road Devonshire but I don't think my father ever lived on Devonshire. Q. The Census shows that he lived there with your mother there. But regardless, you never heard about that story? A. It never happened. And by the way, I saw that it was one little website that said it. It never happened. And they said there were no charges, no nothing. It's unfair to mention it, to be honest, because there were no charges. They said there were charges against other people, but there were absolutely no charges, totally false ... Somebody showed me that website - it was a little website and somebody did that. By the way, did you notice that there were no charges? Well, if there are no charges that means it shouldn't be mentioned ... Because my father, there were no charges against him, I don't know about the other people involved. But there were zero charges against him. So assuming it was him - I don't even think it was him, I never even heard about it. So it's really not fair to mention. It never happened. The author of the piece wrote that Trump revisited the topic 'unprompted,' interjecting to say that: And by the way, my father was not involved, was never charged and I never even heard this before. What? It comes out on a website and you are going to write it on The New York Times? It shouldn't be written because it never happened, No. 1. And No. 2, there was nobody charged. While it's possible the elder Trump attended the event along with KKK supporters and Klansmen, it's also possible he was minding his own business in his own neighborhood and got swept up by police after unknowingly finding himself in the middle of an enormous brawl.

nan

Donald Trump's father was arrested following a Ku Klux Klan-related altercation in 1927.

Neutral

On 9 September 2015 the BoingBoing web site published an article that referenced an archived New York Times piece from 1927, one which reported that President Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump had been arrested in connection with a KKK event: According to a New York Times article published in June 1927, a man with the name and address of Donald Trump's father was arraigned after Klan members attacked cops in Queens, N.Y. In 1927, Donald Trump's father would have been 21 years old, and not yet a well-known figure. Multiple sources report his residence at the time - and throughout his life - at the same address. To be clear, this is not proof that Trump senior - who would later go on to become a millionaire real estate developer - was a member of the Ku Klux Klan or even in attendance at the event. Despite sharing lawyers with the other men, it's conceivable that he may have been an innocent bystander, falsely named, or otherwise the victim of mistaken identity during or following a chaotic event. A person answering calls at the N.Y.C. Police Department's Records Section said that arrest reports dating that far back were not available in any form. BoingBoing included a copy of the New York Times article, with the source material available behind a paywall on the New York Times' web-based archive. That article reported a May 1927 'free-for-all battle' involving 100 policemen and 1,000 Klansmen in Jamaica, Queens: The elder Trump's name appeared once in the article, at the end of a portion headed 'Prisoners are Arraigned.' Details about charges filed against other individuals were included, but Trump was simply said to have been 'discharged' (with no further information about his overall involvement or lack thereof): As BoingBoing stated, the information available in the article made it difficult to figure out whether Trump's father was directly involved in the melee or was simply a bystander who coincidentally found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Other persons were charged with various infractions ranging from felonious assault to disorderly behavior, but Trump wasn't mentioned as having been cited for even minor criminal charges. According to BoingBoing, New York City no longer holds any information about arrests dating as far back as 1927, making it impossible to independently verify the original Times report. On 22 September 2015, the New York Times published an interview with Donald Trump, a transcript of which was prefaced with the following: Mr. Trump's barrage of answers - his sudden denial of a fact he had moments before confirmed; his repeatedly noting that no charges were filed against his father in connection with the incident he had just repeatedly denied; and his denigration of the news organization that brought the incident to light as a 'little website' - shows his pasta-against-the-wall approach to beating down inconvenient story lines. That interview also included the following exchange on the subject of Fred Trump's arrest: Q. Have you seen this story about police arresting a Fred Trump who lived at that Devonshire address in 1927 after a Ku Klux Klan rally turned violent? A. Totally false. We lived on Wareham. The Devonshire - I know there is a road Devonshire but I don't think my father ever lived on Devonshire. Q. The Census shows that he lived there with your mother there. But regardless, you never heard about that story? A. It never happened. And by the way, I saw that it was one little website that said it. It never happened. And they said there were no charges, no nothing. It's unfair to mention it, to be honest, because there were no charges. They said there were charges against other people, but there were absolutely no charges, totally false ... Somebody showed me that website - it was a little website and somebody did that. By the way, did you notice that there were no charges? Well, if there are no charges that means it shouldn't be mentioned ... Because my father, there were no charges against him, I don't know about the other people involved. But there were zero charges against him. So assuming it was him - I don't even think it was him, I never even heard about it. So it's really not fair to mention. It never happened. The author of the piece wrote that Trump revisited the topic 'unprompted,' interjecting to say that: And by the way, my father was not involved, was never charged and I never even heard this before. What? It comes out on a website and you are going to write it on The New York Times? It shouldn't be written because it never happened, No. 1. And No. 2, there was nobody charged. While it's possible the elder Trump attended the event along with KKK supporters and Klansmen, it's also possible he was minding his own business in his own neighborhood and got swept up by police after unknowingly finding himself in the middle of an enormous brawl.

nan

U.S. President Joe Biden farted while meeting with the Duchess of Cornwall.

Neutral

In November 2021, some social media users appeared a bit obsessed with U.S. President Joe Biden's backside. First, a false claim was spread that Biden pooped his pants during a meeting with Pope Francis. Then, an altered video of Biden was circulated on social media that featured a fake fart noise. And now, a rumor is going around that the president farted while speaking with Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall. This rumor stems from an article published by the Daily Mail that relied entirely on a single quote from an anonymous source. The Mail wrote: An informed source has told The Mail on Sunday that Camilla was taken aback to hear Biden break wind as they made polite small talk at the global climate change gathering in Glasgow last week. 'It was long and loud and impossible to ignore,' the source said. 'Camilla hasn't stopped talking about it.' No other evidence has emerged about these alleged emissions. No other sources have acknowledged this possible piece of presidential flatulence, and while a number of news outlets, such as the New York Post and The Sun, have repeated the claim that the Duchess of Cornwall 'hasn't stopped talking about it,' she has not made any public comments about Biden's breaking wind. We can't confirm or debunk whether Biden truly farted while meeting with the Duchess of Cornwall. We can say that the evidence for this fart faux pas is scarce, that it is based entirely on a single quote from an anonymous source, and that it made its way around the internet on the heels of several other false fart rumors.

nan

U.S. President Joe Biden farted while meeting with the Duchess of Cornwall.

Neutral

In November 2021, some social media users appeared a bit obsessed with U.S. President Joe Biden's backside. First, a false claim was spread that Biden pooped his pants during a meeting with Pope Francis. Then, an altered video of Biden was circulated on social media that featured a fake fart noise. And now, a rumor is going around that the president farted while speaking with Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall. This rumor stems from an article published by the Daily Mail that relied entirely on a single quote from an anonymous source. The Mail wrote: An informed source has told The Mail on Sunday that Camilla was taken aback to hear Biden break wind as they made polite small talk at the global climate change gathering in Glasgow last week. 'It was long and loud and impossible to ignore,' the source said. 'Camilla hasn't stopped talking about it.' No other evidence has emerged about these alleged emissions. No other sources have acknowledged this possible piece of presidential flatulence, and while a number of news outlets, such as the New York Post and The Sun, have repeated the claim that the Duchess of Cornwall 'hasn't stopped talking about it,' she has not made any public comments about Biden's breaking wind. We can't confirm or debunk whether Biden truly farted while meeting with the Duchess of Cornwall. We can say that the evidence for this fart faux pas is scarce, that it is based entirely on a single quote from an anonymous source, and that it made its way around the internet on the heels of several other false fart rumors.

nan

Merriam-Webster has recently included the word 'irregardless' among its dictionary definitions.

Neutral

In early July 2020, social media users asked Snopes.com to verify whether it was true that the Merriam-Webster dictionary had newly recognized 'irregardless' as a word in the English language. 'Irregardless' has long been stigmatized as a non-word that has the opposite meaning of its intended use. So when rumor spread that 'irregardless' had been newly enshrined on the pages of Merriam-Webster dictionaries, it prompted some readers to post in jest that 2020, the year marked by the coronavirus pandemic, had just gotten worse: In case you thought 2020 couldn't get any worse, Merriam-Webster just officially recognized 'irregardless' as a word.😱 - Jamie Lee Curtis (@jamieleecurtis) July 6, 2020 It's true that on July 3, Merriam-Webster included the word 'irregardless' in its 'Word of the Week' roundup, apparently prompted by a Twitter user declaring the English language to be 'dead': Yep. English is literally dead. https://t.co/hGVXeSNDV7 - Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) July 1, 2020 Despite gaining new notoriety online, the word isn't a recent dictionary addition. A Merriam-Webster spokesperson told NPR that 'irregardless' has appeared in the pages of its Unabridged dictionary edition since 1934, and, as NPR reported, other dictionaries - including 'Webster's New World College Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Cambridge Dictionary - all recognize irregardless as a word': We'll be sure to pass these complaints on to the editors of our 1934 edition. - Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) July 2, 2020 In its July 3 Words of the Week post, Merriam-Webster poked some fun at the internet outrage over 'irregardless': From time to time it is drawn to our attention that certain parties find it objectionable that we have included irregardless in our dictionary. The outrage presumably springs from our allowing this callow arriviste to rub elbows with other, nobler, words; the very presence of irregardless besmirches such entries as asshead, ninnyhammer, and schnook. But 'irregardless' has been in 'widespread and near-constant' use since 1795, along with other commonly used words such as 'citizenry' and 'terrorism.' Merriam-Webster categorizes the word 'irregardless' as 'nonstandard,' meaning, 'not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.' The word is probably derived from a 'blend of irrespective and regardless.' The word 'irregardless' is defined simply as 'regardless,' according to its definition in the dictionary.

nan

Merriam-Webster has recently included the word 'irregardless' among its dictionary definitions.

Neutral

In early July 2020, social media users asked Snopes.com to verify whether it was true that the Merriam-Webster dictionary had newly recognized 'irregardless' as a word in the English language. 'Irregardless' has long been stigmatized as a non-word that has the opposite meaning of its intended use. So when rumor spread that 'irregardless' had been newly enshrined on the pages of Merriam-Webster dictionaries, it prompted some readers to post in jest that 2020, the year marked by the coronavirus pandemic, had just gotten worse: In case you thought 2020 couldn't get any worse, Merriam-Webster just officially recognized 'irregardless' as a word.😱 - Jamie Lee Curtis (@jamieleecurtis) July 6, 2020 It's true that on July 3, Merriam-Webster included the word 'irregardless' in its 'Word of the Week' roundup, apparently prompted by a Twitter user declaring the English language to be 'dead': Yep. English is literally dead. https://t.co/hGVXeSNDV7 - Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) July 1, 2020 Despite gaining new notoriety online, the word isn't a recent dictionary addition. A Merriam-Webster spokesperson told NPR that 'irregardless' has appeared in the pages of its Unabridged dictionary edition since 1934, and, as NPR reported, other dictionaries - including 'Webster's New World College Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Cambridge Dictionary - all recognize irregardless as a word': We'll be sure to pass these complaints on to the editors of our 1934 edition. - Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) July 2, 2020 In its July 3 Words of the Week post, Merriam-Webster poked some fun at the internet outrage over 'irregardless': From time to time it is drawn to our attention that certain parties find it objectionable that we have included irregardless in our dictionary. The outrage presumably springs from our allowing this callow arriviste to rub elbows with other, nobler, words; the very presence of irregardless besmirches such entries as asshead, ninnyhammer, and schnook. But 'irregardless' has been in 'widespread and near-constant' use since 1795, along with other commonly used words such as 'citizenry' and 'terrorism.' Merriam-Webster categorizes the word 'irregardless' as 'nonstandard,' meaning, 'not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.' The word is probably derived from a 'blend of irrespective and regardless.' The word 'irregardless' is defined simply as 'regardless,' according to its definition in the dictionary.

nan

Merriam-Webster has recently included the word 'irregardless' among its dictionary definitions.

Neutral

In early July 2020, social media users asked Snopes.com to verify whether it was true that the Merriam-Webster dictionary had newly recognized 'irregardless' as a word in the English language. 'Irregardless' has long been stigmatized as a non-word that has the opposite meaning of its intended use. So when rumor spread that 'irregardless' had been newly enshrined on the pages of Merriam-Webster dictionaries, it prompted some readers to post in jest that 2020, the year marked by the coronavirus pandemic, had just gotten worse: In case you thought 2020 couldn't get any worse, Merriam-Webster just officially recognized 'irregardless' as a word.😱 - Jamie Lee Curtis (@jamieleecurtis) July 6, 2020 It's true that on July 3, Merriam-Webster included the word 'irregardless' in its 'Word of the Week' roundup, apparently prompted by a Twitter user declaring the English language to be 'dead': Yep. English is literally dead. https://t.co/hGVXeSNDV7 - Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) July 1, 2020 Despite gaining new notoriety online, the word isn't a recent dictionary addition. A Merriam-Webster spokesperson told NPR that 'irregardless' has appeared in the pages of its Unabridged dictionary edition since 1934, and, as NPR reported, other dictionaries - including 'Webster's New World College Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Cambridge Dictionary - all recognize irregardless as a word': We'll be sure to pass these complaints on to the editors of our 1934 edition. - Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) July 2, 2020 In its July 3 Words of the Week post, Merriam-Webster poked some fun at the internet outrage over 'irregardless': From time to time it is drawn to our attention that certain parties find it objectionable that we have included irregardless in our dictionary. The outrage presumably springs from our allowing this callow arriviste to rub elbows with other, nobler, words; the very presence of irregardless besmirches such entries as asshead, ninnyhammer, and schnook. But 'irregardless' has been in 'widespread and near-constant' use since 1795, along with other commonly used words such as 'citizenry' and 'terrorism.' Merriam-Webster categorizes the word 'irregardless' as 'nonstandard,' meaning, 'not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.' The word is probably derived from a 'blend of irrespective and regardless.' The word 'irregardless' is defined simply as 'regardless,' according to its definition in the dictionary.

nan

Merriam-Webster has recently included the word 'irregardless' among its dictionary definitions.

Neutral

In early July 2020, social media users asked Snopes.com to verify whether it was true that the Merriam-Webster dictionary had newly recognized 'irregardless' as a word in the English language. 'Irregardless' has long been stigmatized as a non-word that has the opposite meaning of its intended use. So when rumor spread that 'irregardless' had been newly enshrined on the pages of Merriam-Webster dictionaries, it prompted some readers to post in jest that 2020, the year marked by the coronavirus pandemic, had just gotten worse: In case you thought 2020 couldn't get any worse, Merriam-Webster just officially recognized 'irregardless' as a word.😱 - Jamie Lee Curtis (@jamieleecurtis) July 6, 2020 It's true that on July 3, Merriam-Webster included the word 'irregardless' in its 'Word of the Week' roundup, apparently prompted by a Twitter user declaring the English language to be 'dead': Yep. English is literally dead. https://t.co/hGVXeSNDV7 - Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) July 1, 2020 Despite gaining new notoriety online, the word isn't a recent dictionary addition. A Merriam-Webster spokesperson told NPR that 'irregardless' has appeared in the pages of its Unabridged dictionary edition since 1934, and, as NPR reported, other dictionaries - including 'Webster's New World College Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Cambridge Dictionary - all recognize irregardless as a word': We'll be sure to pass these complaints on to the editors of our 1934 edition. - Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) July 2, 2020 In its July 3 Words of the Week post, Merriam-Webster poked some fun at the internet outrage over 'irregardless': From time to time it is drawn to our attention that certain parties find it objectionable that we have included irregardless in our dictionary. The outrage presumably springs from our allowing this callow arriviste to rub elbows with other, nobler, words; the very presence of irregardless besmirches such entries as asshead, ninnyhammer, and schnook. But 'irregardless' has been in 'widespread and near-constant' use since 1795, along with other commonly used words such as 'citizenry' and 'terrorism.' Merriam-Webster categorizes the word 'irregardless' as 'nonstandard,' meaning, 'not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.' The word is probably derived from a 'blend of irrespective and regardless.' The word 'irregardless' is defined simply as 'regardless,' according to its definition in the dictionary.

nan

Iran recently passed a law allowing men to marry their daughters.

Neutral

In August 2019, an Indian-based website called The Youth published an article headlined 'A controversial Bill passed in Iran, it allows men to marry daughters, draws flak from other nations' that drew inquiries from many Snopes readers: The Youth failed to inform readers of several salient facts about the article, however, including the following: The text of The Youth's piece had been lifted directly (without attribution) from an article published by The Guardian. The Guardian article copied by The Youth was six years old and therefore did not reflect recent events. The bill referenced in the headline applied to adoptive daughters only, not to daughters in general. According to other sources, the issue was actually contrary to the way it was framed in headlines published by Western news outlets such as The Guardian. Marriage between stepparents and stepchildren had not previously been barred under Iranian law, so in February 2013 Iran's Parliament sought to amend the law and passed a bill incorporating such a ban. Iran's Guardian Council overrode that bill, though, so the Parliament then revised the bill to allow such marriages, but only if they received additional levels of authorization and approval, according to Al-Monitor: In mid-February 2013, an act was passed by the parliament on 'Protection of Children and Adolescents with no guardian (adoption).' In the original act, approved by parliament, marriage between adopted children and their parents was completely banned and it stated that if a foster parent decided to marry his or her adopted child, custody of the child would be taken away from the foster parent. The Guardian Council, however, claimed that this bill was against Sharia and returned it to parliament. The issue stems from traditional and conservative families, in which the adoptive daughter, since she is not related by blood, would have to wear a veil in the home around her adoptive father. Also, adoptive mothers would have to wear the veil around their adoptive sons. Typically, reciting a prayer would have addressed this issue. Because the Guardian Council denied a bill allowing an official ban of this type of marriage, parliament modified the original bill so that marriage between foster parents and their adopted children could take place, however only if it were approved by a judge. Also, according to Title 27 of the revised act, marriage between adopted children and their foster parents could only take place if it were requested by the State Welfare Organization and approved by the court. So, rather than lifting an existing ban and 'allowing' Iranian men to marry their adoptive daughters, the Iranian Parliament attempted to enact a ban on such marriages, which had not previously been barred under the law. Failing that, they passed a bill imposing some restrictions on those marriages: The original text of Article 27 read: 'Whenever the guardian decides to marry, he must submit the personal information of the intended party to the court. In case of marriage, the [relevant] institution is responsible to report the marriage to the court so to ensure the legal conditions for continuation or termination of shared guardianship are decided upon. Note: Marriage during custody or after between the adoptive parent and adopted child is illegal.' However, the revised note to Article 27 now states: 'Marriage during the period of custody or thereafter between the adoptive parent and adopted child is illegal unless the court after consulting the [relevant] organization recognizes the marriage as beneficial to the adopted child.' Opposing sides debated the necessity of the bill in the first place, with one side claiming that such marriages were exceedingly rare, and the other asserting the contrary: A jurist in Tehran said, 'Marriage between adopted children and foster parents was never banned. There are a lot of absurd laws in the Sharia that no one has ever heard about and no judge ever comes in contact with. It is like opening a can of worms! Until today, no foster parent knew that he could marry his adopted child. Parliament had no reason to feel there is any necessity for such an amendment.' People such as Mohammad Nafriyeh, the vice president in charge of social affairs for the State Welfare Organization, defends this law and considers it a step forward. 'Unlike what is being said these days, this amendment in fact puts a stop to the possibility of marriage between foster parents and their adopted children. Previously, however, there was no legal restriction regarding such marriages. This is a step forward.' Another jurist who is critical of this new legislation told Al-Monitor, 'The rate of marriages between foster fathers and their adopted daughters is one in 1 million. What does this mean? It means that there was no need to create such mental distress for thousands of families regarding an issue that only happens one in 1 million cases. Yes, if these marriages were the norm, then this amendment could have been considered a step forward. However, given the current circumstances, how can this be considered a step forward?' But this argument was rejected by Mohammad Nafriyeh. In an interview with Iran Labor News Agency, ILNA, he said, 'As vice-president of the State Welfare Organization, I can tell you that such marriages are not as rare as one might think. We have had cases like these in the past and based on the information that I have, I consider this amendment to be a step forward which can reduce the number of such marriages in the country.' Although at the time The Guardian article was published in September 2013, the revised bill had been passed by the Iranian Parliament but not yet approved by the Guardian Council, the latter's approval was granted shortly afterwards.

nan

Iran recently passed a law allowing men to marry their daughters.

Neutral

In August 2019, an Indian-based website called The Youth published an article headlined 'A controversial Bill passed in Iran, it allows men to marry daughters, draws flak from other nations' that drew inquiries from many Snopes readers: The Youth failed to inform readers of several salient facts about the article, however, including the following: The text of The Youth's piece had been lifted directly (without attribution) from an article published by The Guardian. The Guardian article copied by The Youth was six years old and therefore did not reflect recent events. The bill referenced in the headline applied to adoptive daughters only, not to daughters in general. According to other sources, the issue was actually contrary to the way it was framed in headlines published by Western news outlets such as The Guardian. Marriage between stepparents and stepchildren had not previously been barred under Iranian law, so in February 2013 Iran's Parliament sought to amend the law and passed a bill incorporating such a ban. Iran's Guardian Council overrode that bill, though, so the Parliament then revised the bill to allow such marriages, but only if they received additional levels of authorization and approval, according to Al-Monitor: In mid-February 2013, an act was passed by the parliament on 'Protection of Children and Adolescents with no guardian (adoption).' In the original act, approved by parliament, marriage between adopted children and their parents was completely banned and it stated that if a foster parent decided to marry his or her adopted child, custody of the child would be taken away from the foster parent. The Guardian Council, however, claimed that this bill was against Sharia and returned it to parliament. The issue stems from traditional and conservative families, in which the adoptive daughter, since she is not related by blood, would have to wear a veil in the home around her adoptive father. Also, adoptive mothers would have to wear the veil around their adoptive sons. Typically, reciting a prayer would have addressed this issue. Because the Guardian Council denied a bill allowing an official ban of this type of marriage, parliament modified the original bill so that marriage between foster parents and their adopted children could take place, however only if it were approved by a judge. Also, according to Title 27 of the revised act, marriage between adopted children and their foster parents could only take place if it were requested by the State Welfare Organization and approved by the court. So, rather than lifting an existing ban and 'allowing' Iranian men to marry their adoptive daughters, the Iranian Parliament attempted to enact a ban on such marriages, which had not previously been barred under the law. Failing that, they passed a bill imposing some restrictions on those marriages: The original text of Article 27 read: 'Whenever the guardian decides to marry, he must submit the personal information of the intended party to the court. In case of marriage, the [relevant] institution is responsible to report the marriage to the court so to ensure the legal conditions for continuation or termination of shared guardianship are decided upon. Note: Marriage during custody or after between the adoptive parent and adopted child is illegal.' However, the revised note to Article 27 now states: 'Marriage during the period of custody or thereafter between the adoptive parent and adopted child is illegal unless the court after consulting the [relevant] organization recognizes the marriage as beneficial to the adopted child.' Opposing sides debated the necessity of the bill in the first place, with one side claiming that such marriages were exceedingly rare, and the other asserting the contrary: A jurist in Tehran said, 'Marriage between adopted children and foster parents was never banned. There are a lot of absurd laws in the Sharia that no one has ever heard about and no judge ever comes in contact with. It is like opening a can of worms! Until today, no foster parent knew that he could marry his adopted child. Parliament had no reason to feel there is any necessity for such an amendment.' People such as Mohammad Nafriyeh, the vice president in charge of social affairs for the State Welfare Organization, defends this law and considers it a step forward. 'Unlike what is being said these days, this amendment in fact puts a stop to the possibility of marriage between foster parents and their adopted children. Previously, however, there was no legal restriction regarding such marriages. This is a step forward.' Another jurist who is critical of this new legislation told Al-Monitor, 'The rate of marriages between foster fathers and their adopted daughters is one in 1 million. What does this mean? It means that there was no need to create such mental distress for thousands of families regarding an issue that only happens one in 1 million cases. Yes, if these marriages were the norm, then this amendment could have been considered a step forward. However, given the current circumstances, how can this be considered a step forward?' But this argument was rejected by Mohammad Nafriyeh. In an interview with Iran Labor News Agency, ILNA, he said, 'As vice-president of the State Welfare Organization, I can tell you that such marriages are not as rare as one might think. We have had cases like these in the past and based on the information that I have, I consider this amendment to be a step forward which can reduce the number of such marriages in the country.' Although at the time The Guardian article was published in September 2013, the revised bill had been passed by the Iranian Parliament but not yet approved by the Guardian Council, the latter's approval was granted shortly afterwards.

nan

Iran recently passed a law allowing men to marry their daughters.

Neutral

In August 2019, an Indian-based website called The Youth published an article headlined 'A controversial Bill passed in Iran, it allows men to marry daughters, draws flak from other nations' that drew inquiries from many Snopes readers: The Youth failed to inform readers of several salient facts about the article, however, including the following: The text of The Youth's piece had been lifted directly (without attribution) from an article published by The Guardian. The Guardian article copied by The Youth was six years old and therefore did not reflect recent events. The bill referenced in the headline applied to adoptive daughters only, not to daughters in general. According to other sources, the issue was actually contrary to the way it was framed in headlines published by Western news outlets such as The Guardian. Marriage between stepparents and stepchildren had not previously been barred under Iranian law, so in February 2013 Iran's Parliament sought to amend the law and passed a bill incorporating such a ban. Iran's Guardian Council overrode that bill, though, so the Parliament then revised the bill to allow such marriages, but only if they received additional levels of authorization and approval, according to Al-Monitor: In mid-February 2013, an act was passed by the parliament on 'Protection of Children and Adolescents with no guardian (adoption).' In the original act, approved by parliament, marriage between adopted children and their parents was completely banned and it stated that if a foster parent decided to marry his or her adopted child, custody of the child would be taken away from the foster parent. The Guardian Council, however, claimed that this bill was against Sharia and returned it to parliament. The issue stems from traditional and conservative families, in which the adoptive daughter, since she is not related by blood, would have to wear a veil in the home around her adoptive father. Also, adoptive mothers would have to wear the veil around their adoptive sons. Typically, reciting a prayer would have addressed this issue. Because the Guardian Council denied a bill allowing an official ban of this type of marriage, parliament modified the original bill so that marriage between foster parents and their adopted children could take place, however only if it were approved by a judge. Also, according to Title 27 of the revised act, marriage between adopted children and their foster parents could only take place if it were requested by the State Welfare Organization and approved by the court. So, rather than lifting an existing ban and 'allowing' Iranian men to marry their adoptive daughters, the Iranian Parliament attempted to enact a ban on such marriages, which had not previously been barred under the law. Failing that, they passed a bill imposing some restrictions on those marriages: The original text of Article 27 read: 'Whenever the guardian decides to marry, he must submit the personal information of the intended party to the court. In case of marriage, the [relevant] institution is responsible to report the marriage to the court so to ensure the legal conditions for continuation or termination of shared guardianship are decided upon. Note: Marriage during custody or after between the adoptive parent and adopted child is illegal.' However, the revised note to Article 27 now states: 'Marriage during the period of custody or thereafter between the adoptive parent and adopted child is illegal unless the court after consulting the [relevant] organization recognizes the marriage as beneficial to the adopted child.' Opposing sides debated the necessity of the bill in the first place, with one side claiming that such marriages were exceedingly rare, and the other asserting the contrary: A jurist in Tehran said, 'Marriage between adopted children and foster parents was never banned. There are a lot of absurd laws in the Sharia that no one has ever heard about and no judge ever comes in contact with. It is like opening a can of worms! Until today, no foster parent knew that he could marry his adopted child. Parliament had no reason to feel there is any necessity for such an amendment.' People such as Mohammad Nafriyeh, the vice president in charge of social affairs for the State Welfare Organization, defends this law and considers it a step forward. 'Unlike what is being said these days, this amendment in fact puts a stop to the possibility of marriage between foster parents and their adopted children. Previously, however, there was no legal restriction regarding such marriages. This is a step forward.' Another jurist who is critical of this new legislation told Al-Monitor, 'The rate of marriages between foster fathers and their adopted daughters is one in 1 million. What does this mean? It means that there was no need to create such mental distress for thousands of families regarding an issue that only happens one in 1 million cases. Yes, if these marriages were the norm, then this amendment could have been considered a step forward. However, given the current circumstances, how can this be considered a step forward?' But this argument was rejected by Mohammad Nafriyeh. In an interview with Iran Labor News Agency, ILNA, he said, 'As vice-president of the State Welfare Organization, I can tell you that such marriages are not as rare as one might think. We have had cases like these in the past and based on the information that I have, I consider this amendment to be a step forward which can reduce the number of such marriages in the country.' Although at the time The Guardian article was published in September 2013, the revised bill had been passed by the Iranian Parliament but not yet approved by the Guardian Council, the latter's approval was granted shortly afterwards.

nan

Anthropologist Jane Goodall likened Donald Trump's actions to primates engaging in dominance behavior.

Neutral

On 24 April 2018, United States president Donald Trump hosted French president Emmanuel Macron at the White House, and the physical interactions between the two leaders was the subject of much cable news commentary as well as late-night talk show host joking: President Trump has shown a lot of affection for Emmanuel Macron during the French president's visit to the White House. His handshakes seem to last a little too long, fingers get tangled, cheek-kisses flow abundantly. The late-night hosts rolled the tapes and let the jokes fly. 'Have you ever seen him touch anyone like that? He gave him the full Stormy Daniels there.' - JIMMY KIMMEL 'When President Emmanuel Macron greeted President Trump, he kissed Trump on both cheeks. Then out of habit, Michael Cohen showed up and handed Macron $130,000.' - CONAN O'BRIEN One incident was a little less affectionate, but at least as awkward: Standing next to Macron, Trump told reporters he'd found dandruff on the French leader's jacket. 'Mr. President, Macron is still standing next to you, smiling, after hanging out with you for two days. That's not dandruff - that's cocaine.' - STEPHEN COLBERT 'It is Trump's first state dinner, and in a major departure from tradition, Trump will not invite Democrats or the media. It's true, none of those people are invited. If he doesn't like you, you will not be there. Better luck next time, vegetables - they're serving tacos tonight.' - STEPHEN COLBERT The act of Trump's jokingly brushing dandruff from Macron's shoulder was soon incorporated into memes comparing the act to an aging gorilla's attempts to put down a younger rival, a behavior supposedly noted by anthropologist Jane Goodall: 'When the aging gorilla is confronted with the much more virile, new alpha-male, he shows submissiveness by grooming the alpha-male, but the gesture is actually a vain attempt by the old gorilla to humiliate his much younger rival.' - Jane Goodall pic.twitter.com/fx85I1KwVy - Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers) April 24, 2018 We could turn up no references to this quote about gorilla dominance behavior prior to its appearance online in mid-April 2018. This result is perhaps not surprising, since Goodall was primarily known for her study of chimpanzees, not gorillas. Goodall is frequently confused with fellow primatologist Dian Fossey, whose lifelong study of gorillas was depicted in the 1988 film Gorillas in the Mist, but we found no instances of these words' previously having been attributed to Fossey (or anyone else), either. However, although this particular quote may be apocryphal, Goodall did make a comparison between then-candidate Donald Trump's actions and primate dominance rituals (referencing chimpanzees rather than gorillas), as quoted in an October 2016 article from The Atlantic: Over the past few months I have been asking experts on intellectual and emotional persuasion how they explain Trump's success [...] 'In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,' Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. 'In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.' In her book My Life With the Chimpanzees, Goodall told the story of 'Mike,' a chimp who maintained his dominance by kicking a series of kerosene cans ahead of him as he moved down a road, creating confusion and noise that made his rivals flee and cower. She told me she would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates.

nan

Anthropologist Jane Goodall likened Donald Trump's actions to primates engaging in dominance behavior.

Neutral

On 24 April 2018, United States president Donald Trump hosted French president Emmanuel Macron at the White House, and the physical interactions between the two leaders was the subject of much cable news commentary as well as late-night talk show host joking: President Trump has shown a lot of affection for Emmanuel Macron during the French president's visit to the White House. His handshakes seem to last a little too long, fingers get tangled, cheek-kisses flow abundantly. The late-night hosts rolled the tapes and let the jokes fly. 'Have you ever seen him touch anyone like that? He gave him the full Stormy Daniels there.' - JIMMY KIMMEL 'When President Emmanuel Macron greeted President Trump, he kissed Trump on both cheeks. Then out of habit, Michael Cohen showed up and handed Macron $130,000.' - CONAN O'BRIEN One incident was a little less affectionate, but at least as awkward: Standing next to Macron, Trump told reporters he'd found dandruff on the French leader's jacket. 'Mr. President, Macron is still standing next to you, smiling, after hanging out with you for two days. That's not dandruff - that's cocaine.' - STEPHEN COLBERT 'It is Trump's first state dinner, and in a major departure from tradition, Trump will not invite Democrats or the media. It's true, none of those people are invited. If he doesn't like you, you will not be there. Better luck next time, vegetables - they're serving tacos tonight.' - STEPHEN COLBERT The act of Trump's jokingly brushing dandruff from Macron's shoulder was soon incorporated into memes comparing the act to an aging gorilla's attempts to put down a younger rival, a behavior supposedly noted by anthropologist Jane Goodall: 'When the aging gorilla is confronted with the much more virile, new alpha-male, he shows submissiveness by grooming the alpha-male, but the gesture is actually a vain attempt by the old gorilla to humiliate his much younger rival.' - Jane Goodall pic.twitter.com/fx85I1KwVy - Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers) April 24, 2018 We could turn up no references to this quote about gorilla dominance behavior prior to its appearance online in mid-April 2018. This result is perhaps not surprising, since Goodall was primarily known for her study of chimpanzees, not gorillas. Goodall is frequently confused with fellow primatologist Dian Fossey, whose lifelong study of gorillas was depicted in the 1988 film Gorillas in the Mist, but we found no instances of these words' previously having been attributed to Fossey (or anyone else), either. However, although this particular quote may be apocryphal, Goodall did make a comparison between then-candidate Donald Trump's actions and primate dominance rituals (referencing chimpanzees rather than gorillas), as quoted in an October 2016 article from The Atlantic: Over the past few months I have been asking experts on intellectual and emotional persuasion how they explain Trump's success [...] 'In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,' Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. 'In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.' In her book My Life With the Chimpanzees, Goodall told the story of 'Mike,' a chimp who maintained his dominance by kicking a series of kerosene cans ahead of him as he moved down a road, creating confusion and noise that made his rivals flee and cower. She told me she would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates.

nan

Anthropologist Jane Goodall likened Donald Trump's actions to primates engaging in dominance behavior.

Neutral

On 24 April 2018, United States president Donald Trump hosted French president Emmanuel Macron at the White House, and the physical interactions between the two leaders was the subject of much cable news commentary as well as late-night talk show host joking: President Trump has shown a lot of affection for Emmanuel Macron during the French president's visit to the White House. His handshakes seem to last a little too long, fingers get tangled, cheek-kisses flow abundantly. The late-night hosts rolled the tapes and let the jokes fly. 'Have you ever seen him touch anyone like that? He gave him the full Stormy Daniels there.' - JIMMY KIMMEL 'When President Emmanuel Macron greeted President Trump, he kissed Trump on both cheeks. Then out of habit, Michael Cohen showed up and handed Macron $130,000.' - CONAN O'BRIEN One incident was a little less affectionate, but at least as awkward: Standing next to Macron, Trump told reporters he'd found dandruff on the French leader's jacket. 'Mr. President, Macron is still standing next to you, smiling, after hanging out with you for two days. That's not dandruff - that's cocaine.' - STEPHEN COLBERT 'It is Trump's first state dinner, and in a major departure from tradition, Trump will not invite Democrats or the media. It's true, none of those people are invited. If he doesn't like you, you will not be there. Better luck next time, vegetables - they're serving tacos tonight.' - STEPHEN COLBERT The act of Trump's jokingly brushing dandruff from Macron's shoulder was soon incorporated into memes comparing the act to an aging gorilla's attempts to put down a younger rival, a behavior supposedly noted by anthropologist Jane Goodall: 'When the aging gorilla is confronted with the much more virile, new alpha-male, he shows submissiveness by grooming the alpha-male, but the gesture is actually a vain attempt by the old gorilla to humiliate his much younger rival.' - Jane Goodall pic.twitter.com/fx85I1KwVy - Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers) April 24, 2018 We could turn up no references to this quote about gorilla dominance behavior prior to its appearance online in mid-April 2018. This result is perhaps not surprising, since Goodall was primarily known for her study of chimpanzees, not gorillas. Goodall is frequently confused with fellow primatologist Dian Fossey, whose lifelong study of gorillas was depicted in the 1988 film Gorillas in the Mist, but we found no instances of these words' previously having been attributed to Fossey (or anyone else), either. However, although this particular quote may be apocryphal, Goodall did make a comparison between then-candidate Donald Trump's actions and primate dominance rituals (referencing chimpanzees rather than gorillas), as quoted in an October 2016 article from The Atlantic: Over the past few months I have been asking experts on intellectual and emotional persuasion how they explain Trump's success [...] 'In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,' Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. 'In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.' In her book My Life With the Chimpanzees, Goodall told the story of 'Mike,' a chimp who maintained his dominance by kicking a series of kerosene cans ahead of him as he moved down a road, creating confusion and noise that made his rivals flee and cower. She told me she would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates.

nan

In a December 2020 television episode, Nigella Lawson wildly mispronounced the word 'microwave.

Neutral

In December 2020, internet users - many of them several months into protracted and intermittent COVID-19 lockdowns - reacted with a mixture of delight, amusement, and genuine confusion, when popular English television chef and food writer Nigella Lawson appeared to wildly mispronounce the word for a thoroughly commonplace kitchen appliance - the microwave. The unusual twist on the word - Lawson pronounced it 'meekro-wuh-vay' - came during a recipe for mashed potatoes and meatballs in the fifth episode of her BBC television series 'Cook, Eat, Repeat,' which was broadcast on Dec. 7, 2020. It prompted a veritable eruption of social media posts, and several articles describing Lawson as having 'broken the internet' or causing an 'internet meltdown.' Observers outside the U.K. wondered aloud whether the pronunciation was standard there. One widely-shared tweet included a short clip from the episode, along with the caption 'Eternally grateful to Nigella Lawson for letting us know we've all been mispronouncing microwave for the last 50 (or so) years': Eternally grateful to Nigella Lawson for letting us know we've all been mispronouncing microwave for the last 50 (or so) years. pic.twitter.com/tfXODGQRDp - nigella lawson's asbestos hands (@floellaumbagabe) December 8, 2020 The footage was authentic, and was not dubbed over or digitally altered. However, Lawson has since (repeatedly) clarified what was obvious to some, but not others - her mispronunciation was knowing and playful, rather than being the result of a genuine misunderstanding of how 'microwave' should be said, akin to the habit, possessed by many Americans, of jokingly mispronouncing the name of the department store chain Target as 'Tar-zhay.' Lawson, who is a household name in the U.K. due to her relatively straightforward recipes and her celebration of personal pleasure in cooking, frequently interacts with fans and followers on Twitter. In the days following the episode, she repeatedly clarified that her unusual pronunciation of 'microwave' was 'just a silly joke,' adding, 'I do say it like that, but not because I think that's how it's actually pronounced.'

nan

A 9-year-old boy suffered burns to his feet after the light-up soles on his Skechers shoes got wet.

Neutral

A New York woman's online account led to the Skechers shoe company's pulling (at least for the moment_ a line of childrens' shoes after she posted photographs of what she called second-degree burns suffered by her 9-year-old son. In her 26 June 2018 post, which was shared several hundred times on Facebook, Sherry Foster said that her son Peyton had received 2nd-degree chemical burns from his Skechers lightable shoes because 'apparently when they get wet the batteries release a chemical causing children's feet to burn': We contacted Sherry Foster seeking comment without receiving a response, but she said in one interview that her son had waited a day before telling her that his feet were hurting, and that they subsequently sought medical care: The day it happened, he came home and said 'My feet hurt.' They were a little bit red, I didn't think anything of it - maybe that they were cold from playing in the water. The next day he came home and was really complaining. That's when we decided, okay, what do we do, so we took him to the doctor. [The doctor had] seen it one other time, that's what gave it away. He had second degree chemical burns. Her son, Foster said, was expected to make a full recovery, but the experience has left him afraid to wear shoes. The shoes have been identified as a pair of Sketch Rayz, part of the S-Light line of shoes with soles that light up. Skechers sent a statement to news outlets saying that their products 'are rigorously tested for safety,' and that Foster's account was the first incident of its type to be reported to them: Notwithstanding, when Ms. Foster's Facebook post was brought to our attention Friday, June 29, we immediately contacted her, inquired about her son, and asked her to send us the shoes so we can determine whether the shoes contributed to her son's injuries. Ms. Foster has agreed to send us the shoes, and we will continue our investigation. Despite the lack of any other similar reported incidents, we are taking this complaint very seriously and giving it the highest priority. Skechers also sent us a separate statement on 25 July 2018 saying: Testing on the actual pair hasn't begun. Though Ms. Foster agreed to send the pair in question, we have not received them after multiple follow ups. While we have no reason to believe that our shoes caused the incident, we are hoping for Ms. Foster's cooperation so we can investigate this thoroughly and promptly. In the meantime, we are commissioning tests of similar styles, and are continuing to give this the highest priority. While the S-Line shoes are still visible on the company's website, a listing for the Sketch Rayz says they are 'out of stock or no longer available': A Skechers spokesperson told us that those shoes have been 'sold out for some time.'Recent Updates Update [25 July 2018]: Added comments from Skechers.

nan

A 9-year-old boy suffered burns to his feet after the light-up soles on his Skechers shoes got wet.

Neutral

A New York woman's online account led to the Skechers shoe company's pulling (at least for the moment_ a line of childrens' shoes after she posted photographs of what she called second-degree burns suffered by her 9-year-old son. In her 26 June 2018 post, which was shared several hundred times on Facebook, Sherry Foster said that her son Peyton had received 2nd-degree chemical burns from his Skechers lightable shoes because 'apparently when they get wet the batteries release a chemical causing children's feet to burn': We contacted Sherry Foster seeking comment without receiving a response, but she said in one interview that her son had waited a day before telling her that his feet were hurting, and that they subsequently sought medical care: The day it happened, he came home and said 'My feet hurt.' They were a little bit red, I didn't think anything of it - maybe that they were cold from playing in the water. The next day he came home and was really complaining. That's when we decided, okay, what do we do, so we took him to the doctor. [The doctor had] seen it one other time, that's what gave it away. He had second degree chemical burns. Her son, Foster said, was expected to make a full recovery, but the experience has left him afraid to wear shoes. The shoes have been identified as a pair of Sketch Rayz, part of the S-Light line of shoes with soles that light up. Skechers sent a statement to news outlets saying that their products 'are rigorously tested for safety,' and that Foster's account was the first incident of its type to be reported to them: Notwithstanding, when Ms. Foster's Facebook post was brought to our attention Friday, June 29, we immediately contacted her, inquired about her son, and asked her to send us the shoes so we can determine whether the shoes contributed to her son's injuries. Ms. Foster has agreed to send us the shoes, and we will continue our investigation. Despite the lack of any other similar reported incidents, we are taking this complaint very seriously and giving it the highest priority. Skechers also sent us a separate statement on 25 July 2018 saying: Testing on the actual pair hasn't begun. Though Ms. Foster agreed to send the pair in question, we have not received them after multiple follow ups. While we have no reason to believe that our shoes caused the incident, we are hoping for Ms. Foster's cooperation so we can investigate this thoroughly and promptly. In the meantime, we are commissioning tests of similar styles, and are continuing to give this the highest priority. While the S-Line shoes are still visible on the company's website, a listing for the Sketch Rayz says they are 'out of stock or no longer available': A Skechers spokesperson told us that those shoes have been 'sold out for some time.'Recent Updates Update [25 July 2018]: Added comments from Skechers.

nan

A 9-year-old boy suffered burns to his feet after the light-up soles on his Skechers shoes got wet.

Neutral

A New York woman's online account led to the Skechers shoe company's pulling (at least for the moment_ a line of childrens' shoes after she posted photographs of what she called second-degree burns suffered by her 9-year-old son. In her 26 June 2018 post, which was shared several hundred times on Facebook, Sherry Foster said that her son Peyton had received 2nd-degree chemical burns from his Skechers lightable shoes because 'apparently when they get wet the batteries release a chemical causing children's feet to burn': We contacted Sherry Foster seeking comment without receiving a response, but she said in one interview that her son had waited a day before telling her that his feet were hurting, and that they subsequently sought medical care: The day it happened, he came home and said 'My feet hurt.' They were a little bit red, I didn't think anything of it - maybe that they were cold from playing in the water. The next day he came home and was really complaining. That's when we decided, okay, what do we do, so we took him to the doctor. [The doctor had] seen it one other time, that's what gave it away. He had second degree chemical burns. Her son, Foster said, was expected to make a full recovery, but the experience has left him afraid to wear shoes. The shoes have been identified as a pair of Sketch Rayz, part of the S-Light line of shoes with soles that light up. Skechers sent a statement to news outlets saying that their products 'are rigorously tested for safety,' and that Foster's account was the first incident of its type to be reported to them: Notwithstanding, when Ms. Foster's Facebook post was brought to our attention Friday, June 29, we immediately contacted her, inquired about her son, and asked her to send us the shoes so we can determine whether the shoes contributed to her son's injuries. Ms. Foster has agreed to send us the shoes, and we will continue our investigation. Despite the lack of any other similar reported incidents, we are taking this complaint very seriously and giving it the highest priority. Skechers also sent us a separate statement on 25 July 2018 saying: Testing on the actual pair hasn't begun. Though Ms. Foster agreed to send the pair in question, we have not received them after multiple follow ups. While we have no reason to believe that our shoes caused the incident, we are hoping for Ms. Foster's cooperation so we can investigate this thoroughly and promptly. In the meantime, we are commissioning tests of similar styles, and are continuing to give this the highest priority. While the S-Line shoes are still visible on the company's website, a listing for the Sketch Rayz says they are 'out of stock or no longer available': A Skechers spokesperson told us that those shoes have been 'sold out for some time.'Recent Updates Update [25 July 2018]: Added comments from Skechers.

nan

ISIS called for the assassination of Barron Trump in November 2017.

Neutral

On 21 November 2017, several outlets published articles under irresponsible headlines claiming that ISIS had called for the assassination of Barron Trump. One of the most egregious was published by The Daily Caller, which in addition to stating that the terrorist group had called for the assassination of President Trump's son, also claimed that they had released a 'detailed plan' of how the deed would be accomplished: ISIS Calls For Assassination Of Barron Trump, Release Detailed Plan To Kill 11-Year-Old Nearly all of these reports linked back to an article published by The Washington Beacon which in turn cited a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a non-profit that provides translations of foreign reports. The claims made in the initial report, however, were far less daunting than subsequent headlines made them appear. The MEMRI report was not available on their web site at the time of this writing. The full report, which MEMRI sent to us via email, can be seen below. The MEMRI report states this threat was posted in a 'pro-ISIS' channel on Telegram, a popular communication app, by a 'supporter of ISIS.' The report did not state that the threat came from a known-terrorist, or from a leader of ISIS, or through some form of official communication from the terrorist organization. This lack of verification of the message's original source puts the post on shaky ground, and was omitted from the exaggerated headlines. When we reached out to MEMRI for comment, they emphasized this distinction: Please note the report indicates it was a supporter of ISIS on a pro-ISIS Telegram channel. Popular in the Middle East, Telegram is an encrypted chat application that has been used by ISIS in the past, with The New York Times reporting in February 2017 that one of the Islamic State's most influential recruiters instructs newcomers to contact him on the messaging app. Additionally, the message on Telegram did not include a 'detailed plan.' The Telegram post, which MEMRI shared with us, consisted solely of a photograph of Barron Trump, a map showing the location of his school, and a few hashtags. One of these hashtags, which MEMRI translated to mean 'handle the son of the mule of America,' appears to be the only reference to a 'plan' for an assassination. It should also be noted that the location of Barron Trump's school was publicly known long-before this message was posted on Telegram. Here is the full report from MEMRI: On November 21, 2017, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS) on Telegram called for the assassination of Barron Trump, and shared the name of the school that Barron attends along with a Google map pinpointing its location. Using the hashtag 'handle the son of the mule of America,' the supporter, who uses the name 'Dak Al-Munafiqeen,' Arabic for 'striking the hypocrites,' wrote: 'Barron Trump goes to this school in Washington.' The post was followed by a photo of Barron Trump. To widely disseminate the call for assassination, several pro-ISIS Telegram channels have shared and forwarded the post. Although we have no reason to dispute MEMRI's translation, it should be noted that the group has been accused of biased reporting in the past. In an article entitled 'Selective MEMRI,' Guardian reporter Brian Whitaker argued that the non-profit has a habit of translating articles that shine a particularly bad light on the Muslim world: The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by MEMRI for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: 'MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible.' Threats against the President and the First Family should not be taken lightly, but the outlets reporting that 'ISIS Call(ed) for Assassination of Barron Trump' exaggerated the contents of a message posted to Telegram to make it appear as if this were a credible threat sent directly from the terrorist organization.Dan Evon assassination barron trump Donald Trump Sources Strauss, Valerie. 'Barron Trump to Attend Private St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Maryland This Fall.' The Washington Post. 15 May 2017. Whitaker, Brian. 'Selective Memri.' The Guardian. 12 August 2002.

nan

ISIS called for the assassination of Barron Trump in November 2017.

Neutral

On 21 November 2017, several outlets published articles under irresponsible headlines claiming that ISIS had called for the assassination of Barron Trump. One of the most egregious was published by The Daily Caller, which in addition to stating that the terrorist group had called for the assassination of President Trump's son, also claimed that they had released a 'detailed plan' of how the deed would be accomplished: ISIS Calls For Assassination Of Barron Trump, Release Detailed Plan To Kill 11-Year-Old Nearly all of these reports linked back to an article published by The Washington Beacon which in turn cited a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a non-profit that provides translations of foreign reports. The claims made in the initial report, however, were far less daunting than subsequent headlines made them appear. The MEMRI report was not available on their web site at the time of this writing. The full report, which MEMRI sent to us via email, can be seen below. The MEMRI report states this threat was posted in a 'pro-ISIS' channel on Telegram, a popular communication app, by a 'supporter of ISIS.' The report did not state that the threat came from a known-terrorist, or from a leader of ISIS, or through some form of official communication from the terrorist organization. This lack of verification of the message's original source puts the post on shaky ground, and was omitted from the exaggerated headlines. When we reached out to MEMRI for comment, they emphasized this distinction: Please note the report indicates it was a supporter of ISIS on a pro-ISIS Telegram channel. Popular in the Middle East, Telegram is an encrypted chat application that has been used by ISIS in the past, with The New York Times reporting in February 2017 that one of the Islamic State's most influential recruiters instructs newcomers to contact him on the messaging app. Additionally, the message on Telegram did not include a 'detailed plan.' The Telegram post, which MEMRI shared with us, consisted solely of a photograph of Barron Trump, a map showing the location of his school, and a few hashtags. One of these hashtags, which MEMRI translated to mean 'handle the son of the mule of America,' appears to be the only reference to a 'plan' for an assassination. It should also be noted that the location of Barron Trump's school was publicly known long-before this message was posted on Telegram. Here is the full report from MEMRI: On November 21, 2017, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS) on Telegram called for the assassination of Barron Trump, and shared the name of the school that Barron attends along with a Google map pinpointing its location. Using the hashtag 'handle the son of the mule of America,' the supporter, who uses the name 'Dak Al-Munafiqeen,' Arabic for 'striking the hypocrites,' wrote: 'Barron Trump goes to this school in Washington.' The post was followed by a photo of Barron Trump. To widely disseminate the call for assassination, several pro-ISIS Telegram channels have shared and forwarded the post. Although we have no reason to dispute MEMRI's translation, it should be noted that the group has been accused of biased reporting in the past. In an article entitled 'Selective MEMRI,' Guardian reporter Brian Whitaker argued that the non-profit has a habit of translating articles that shine a particularly bad light on the Muslim world: The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by MEMRI for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: 'MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible.' Threats against the President and the First Family should not be taken lightly, but the outlets reporting that 'ISIS Call(ed) for Assassination of Barron Trump' exaggerated the contents of a message posted to Telegram to make it appear as if this were a credible threat sent directly from the terrorist organization.Dan Evon assassination barron trump Donald Trump Sources Strauss, Valerie. 'Barron Trump to Attend Private St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Maryland This Fall.' The Washington Post. 15 May 2017. Whitaker, Brian. 'Selective Memri.' The Guardian. 12 August 2002.

nan

ISIS called for the assassination of Barron Trump in November 2017.

Neutral

On 21 November 2017, several outlets published articles under irresponsible headlines claiming that ISIS had called for the assassination of Barron Trump. One of the most egregious was published by The Daily Caller, which in addition to stating that the terrorist group had called for the assassination of President Trump's son, also claimed that they had released a 'detailed plan' of how the deed would be accomplished: ISIS Calls For Assassination Of Barron Trump, Release Detailed Plan To Kill 11-Year-Old Nearly all of these reports linked back to an article published by The Washington Beacon which in turn cited a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a non-profit that provides translations of foreign reports. The claims made in the initial report, however, were far less daunting than subsequent headlines made them appear. The MEMRI report was not available on their web site at the time of this writing. The full report, which MEMRI sent to us via email, can be seen below. The MEMRI report states this threat was posted in a 'pro-ISIS' channel on Telegram, a popular communication app, by a 'supporter of ISIS.' The report did not state that the threat came from a known-terrorist, or from a leader of ISIS, or through some form of official communication from the terrorist organization. This lack of verification of the message's original source puts the post on shaky ground, and was omitted from the exaggerated headlines. When we reached out to MEMRI for comment, they emphasized this distinction: Please note the report indicates it was a supporter of ISIS on a pro-ISIS Telegram channel. Popular in the Middle East, Telegram is an encrypted chat application that has been used by ISIS in the past, with The New York Times reporting in February 2017 that one of the Islamic State's most influential recruiters instructs newcomers to contact him on the messaging app. Additionally, the message on Telegram did not include a 'detailed plan.' The Telegram post, which MEMRI shared with us, consisted solely of a photograph of Barron Trump, a map showing the location of his school, and a few hashtags. One of these hashtags, which MEMRI translated to mean 'handle the son of the mule of America,' appears to be the only reference to a 'plan' for an assassination. It should also be noted that the location of Barron Trump's school was publicly known long-before this message was posted on Telegram. Here is the full report from MEMRI: On November 21, 2017, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS) on Telegram called for the assassination of Barron Trump, and shared the name of the school that Barron attends along with a Google map pinpointing its location. Using the hashtag 'handle the son of the mule of America,' the supporter, who uses the name 'Dak Al-Munafiqeen,' Arabic for 'striking the hypocrites,' wrote: 'Barron Trump goes to this school in Washington.' The post was followed by a photo of Barron Trump. To widely disseminate the call for assassination, several pro-ISIS Telegram channels have shared and forwarded the post. Although we have no reason to dispute MEMRI's translation, it should be noted that the group has been accused of biased reporting in the past. In an article entitled 'Selective MEMRI,' Guardian reporter Brian Whitaker argued that the non-profit has a habit of translating articles that shine a particularly bad light on the Muslim world: The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by MEMRI for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: 'MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible.' Threats against the President and the First Family should not be taken lightly, but the outlets reporting that 'ISIS Call(ed) for Assassination of Barron Trump' exaggerated the contents of a message posted to Telegram to make it appear as if this were a credible threat sent directly from the terrorist organization.Dan Evon assassination barron trump Donald Trump Sources Strauss, Valerie. 'Barron Trump to Attend Private St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Maryland This Fall.' The Washington Post. 15 May 2017. Whitaker, Brian. 'Selective Memri.' The Guardian. 12 August 2002.

nan

ISIS called for the assassination of Barron Trump in November 2017.

Neutral

On 21 November 2017, several outlets published articles under irresponsible headlines claiming that ISIS had called for the assassination of Barron Trump. One of the most egregious was published by The Daily Caller, which in addition to stating that the terrorist group had called for the assassination of President Trump's son, also claimed that they had released a 'detailed plan' of how the deed would be accomplished: ISIS Calls For Assassination Of Barron Trump, Release Detailed Plan To Kill 11-Year-Old Nearly all of these reports linked back to an article published by The Washington Beacon which in turn cited a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a non-profit that provides translations of foreign reports. The claims made in the initial report, however, were far less daunting than subsequent headlines made them appear. The MEMRI report was not available on their web site at the time of this writing. The full report, which MEMRI sent to us via email, can be seen below. The MEMRI report states this threat was posted in a 'pro-ISIS' channel on Telegram, a popular communication app, by a 'supporter of ISIS.' The report did not state that the threat came from a known-terrorist, or from a leader of ISIS, or through some form of official communication from the terrorist organization. This lack of verification of the message's original source puts the post on shaky ground, and was omitted from the exaggerated headlines. When we reached out to MEMRI for comment, they emphasized this distinction: Please note the report indicates it was a supporter of ISIS on a pro-ISIS Telegram channel. Popular in the Middle East, Telegram is an encrypted chat application that has been used by ISIS in the past, with The New York Times reporting in February 2017 that one of the Islamic State's most influential recruiters instructs newcomers to contact him on the messaging app. Additionally, the message on Telegram did not include a 'detailed plan.' The Telegram post, which MEMRI shared with us, consisted solely of a photograph of Barron Trump, a map showing the location of his school, and a few hashtags. One of these hashtags, which MEMRI translated to mean 'handle the son of the mule of America,' appears to be the only reference to a 'plan' for an assassination. It should also be noted that the location of Barron Trump's school was publicly known long-before this message was posted on Telegram. Here is the full report from MEMRI: On November 21, 2017, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS) on Telegram called for the assassination of Barron Trump, and shared the name of the school that Barron attends along with a Google map pinpointing its location. Using the hashtag 'handle the son of the mule of America,' the supporter, who uses the name 'Dak Al-Munafiqeen,' Arabic for 'striking the hypocrites,' wrote: 'Barron Trump goes to this school in Washington.' The post was followed by a photo of Barron Trump. To widely disseminate the call for assassination, several pro-ISIS Telegram channels have shared and forwarded the post. Although we have no reason to dispute MEMRI's translation, it should be noted that the group has been accused of biased reporting in the past. In an article entitled 'Selective MEMRI,' Guardian reporter Brian Whitaker argued that the non-profit has a habit of translating articles that shine a particularly bad light on the Muslim world: The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by MEMRI for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: 'MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible.' Threats against the President and the First Family should not be taken lightly, but the outlets reporting that 'ISIS Call(ed) for Assassination of Barron Trump' exaggerated the contents of a message posted to Telegram to make it appear as if this were a credible threat sent directly from the terrorist organization.Dan Evon assassination barron trump Donald Trump Sources Strauss, Valerie. 'Barron Trump to Attend Private St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Maryland This Fall.' The Washington Post. 15 May 2017. Whitaker, Brian. 'Selective Memri.' The Guardian. 12 August 2002.

nan

Donald Trump boasted in a tweet that Jeb Bush failed to renew his domain registration, enabling Trump's campaign to redirect it to Trump's web site.

Neutral

On 15 February 2016, social media users began sharing the above-reproduced tweet. On first glance, it appeared to be a boast from Donald Trump about registering JebBush.com because Bush's campaign 'forgot to renew' the domain. However, the tweet didn't appear anywhere on Trump's recent Twitter feed, and the image clearly showed a handle of @P0TUSTrump, not Trump's known Twitter handle of @RealDonaldTrump. The tweet was visible on the account @P0TUSTrump, dated 6 January 2016: The redirection wasn't actually news in January or February 2016; on 7 December 2015, The Hill reported: The long-standing feud between Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump and GOP rival Jeb Bush escalated on Monday, with a site with the former Florida governor's name redirecting to Trump's campaign website homepage. A site with the domain name JebBush.com redirects to the real estate mogul's official presidential campaign page, donaldjtrump.com, and features Trump's slogan with options to support or donate to his campaign. Bush's official presidential campaign page uses the domain name Jeb2016.com. It wasn't clear whether Bush ever maintained a web presence at JebBush.com; no cached copies were available through web archive sites. Domain registration records indicated that the Trump campaign wasn't necessarily linked to the prank: Ultimately, it was true JebBush.com redirected to Donald Trump's web site. But Trump didn't brag about the redirect on Twitter, nor was he likely responsible for it. Finally, it didn't appear Bush's campaign ever maintained a web site at JebBush.com for any parties to specifically 'take over.' It wasn't clear who specifically registered the domain, set up the redirect to Trump's site, or why they did so.

nan

In 2018, President Donald Trump began a policy of forcing detained immigrants scheduled for criminal prosecution to wear identifying wristbands and yellow bracelets.

Neutral

On 24 May, the Washington Press web site reported that President Donald Trump had 'just begun forcing detained immigrants to wear yellow insignias,' a policy which some readers likened to Nazi Germany's practice of forcing Jews to wear yellow Star of David badges: President Donald Trump's most monstrous policy is finally becoming a reality. The Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies have begun separating migrant children from their parents and placing them in military warehouses while their parents are locked away in ICE's concentration camps. But there is another, somehow even darker, detail to the story that the administration failed to announce. They are now marking arrested immigrants with yellow insignias. The Arizona Daily Star reports that at a recent immigration hearing, Alma Jacinto, a 36-year-old Guatemalan migrant had her children taken from her - and was given a yellow 'bracelet' to indicate her status as a detained illegal immigrant. The referenced passage from the Daily Star article said that 'Jacinto wore a yellow bracelet on her left wrist, which defense lawyers said identifies parents who are arrested with their children and prosecuted in Operation Streamline, a fast-track program for illegal border crossers.' It's unclear from that description whether the referenced yellow 'bracelet' identified the arrested woman as a detainee or specifically a detainee with children, or whether it was something separate from the identifying wristbands that have long been used under Operation Streamline. (We reached out to the Star's reporters for clarification but had not heard back by press time.) Certainly the use of bracelets and/or wristbands is not part of a new policy just enacted by the Trump administration, nor something that otherwise has 'just begun.' Immigration authorities have for years used wristbands to identify immigrants scheduled for summary criminal prosecution for illegal border-crossing under a federal initiative known as Operation Streamline, which was created under the administration of George W. Bush in 2005 and continued during the Obama and Trump administrations. Operation Streamline was launched in 2005 by Michael Chertoff, then the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to the DHS, the U.S. Border Patrol piloted the initiative 'in response to an increase in illegal alien entries from countries other than Mexico in 2004 and 2005' and intended it to 'reduce the rate of alien re-entry recidivism.' Traditionally, the approach to foreign nationals crossing the U.S. border illegally from Mexico had been to stop them and send them back over the border into Mexico (an approach known as 'catch and release') or to detain them and then formally deport them. Under Operations Streamline, such persons were to be rounded up to undergo criminal prosecution in United States district courts, serve jail sentences (usually under one year), and then be deported. The initiative was jointly run by the Department of Homeland Security (in the form of the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies) and the Department of Justice (by way of U.S. Attorneys and district courts along the border). One feature of Operation Streamline is that immigrants are often processed en masse rather than in separate criminal cases. In 2014, a U.S. District Court judge in Tucson, Arizona, told the New York Times that he had once processed 70 individuals (the most the jail cells adjacent to the courtroom could accommodate) in one 30-minute session. Most defendants pled guilty to illegally crossing the border in order to obtain a shorter prison sentences. For at least five years, officials have been using bracelets to identify persons rounded up for prosecution under Operation Streamline. In early 2013, G.W. Schulz, a journalist from the Center for Investigative Reporting, examined the plight of recently deported immigrants sent back over the border to Mexico. His report contained photographic evidence of the use of the wristbands as well as the following description: What we try to do in the United States is apply criminal justice principles to immigration patterns. Whenever we saw a wristband, we knew that that individual had been processed through a program called Operation Streamline - that's where individuals are criminally prosecuted for violating immigration laws.  According to a 2015 report by the Department of Homeland Security, at the height of the operation's implementation, six out of nine southwestern border 'sectors' (in Arizona and Texas) were participating in Operation Streamline. However, by 2014 that had been reduced to just three sectors: Del Rio, Texas, where the program was first launched in 2005; Laredo, Texas; and Tucson, Arizona. During the two administrations of former president Barack Obama, the implementation of the initiative first expanded and then shrank again. Operation Streamline has never been implemented in California. U.S. Border Patrol estimates hold that the agency made almost 170,000 referrals to federal courts for criminal prosecution of illegal border-crossing between 2006 and 2011. Supporters of the policy have said the prospect of criminal prosecution and a jail sentence has proved to be an effective deterrent against illegal crossings along the Mexican border. In 2015, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake enthusiastically defended Operation Streamline, writing in a Senate Resolution that it had 'resulted in gains in border security in the Yuma sector' and was 'associated with a recidivism rate that is well below average and has seen a steady decrease in recidivism in recent years.' For 2012 and 2013, Border Patrol data show that the rate of recidivism (a person illegally entering the United States more than once in the same year) was almost three times as low among individuals processed in criminal courts under Operation Streamline than it was among individuals allowed to simply leave the United States at their own expense, a system known as 'voluntary return.' However, critics have condemned Operation Streamline as distracting law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors from targeting violent crime and drug trafficking by attempting a 'zero tolerance' approach to all those who cross the border illegally (many of whom are themselves fleeing violence and criminal gangs), overloading federal courts in border districts, costing too much, and violating the due process rights of detained immigrants by prosecuting them en masse. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the collective court hearings typical of Operation Streamline violated due process norms, because even if a large number of defendants were processed together in a courtroom, the court was still obligated to deal with each of them on an individual basis. In his ruling, Circuit Judge John Noonan wrote that: No judge, however alert, could tell whether every single person in a group of 47 or 50 affirmatively answered her questions when the answers were taken at the same time. No judge could have detected a mute response offered in the midst of a medley of voices saying 'Si.' No judge, however conscientious, could have possessed the ability to hear distinctly and accurately fifty voices at the same time. The record reflects the most that could be detected: a 'General Yes.' How different that record is from the hearing in which four of the appellants were questioned together, and the record reflects responses from 'All.' Neither an indistinct murmur or medley of yeses nor a presumption that all those brought to court by the Border Patrol must have crossed the border is sufficient to show that each defendant pleaded voluntarily. President Trump's administration has not 'just begun' the use of wristbands and bracelets nor the implementation of Operation Streamline. However, the Trump administration has signaled its intent to ramp up the use of criminal prosecutions. In April 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote to U.S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) along the southwestern border, ordering them 'to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses referred for prosecution under section 1325(a).' This order is significant, because Section 1325 of the U.S. Code relates to the misdemeanor of 'improper entry' into the United States, a charge typically brought against first-time border crossers, and historically dealt with using civil and administrative removal from the country. Now, Attorney General Sessions is pushing a policy of using criminal convictions even for first-time misdemeanor 'improper entry,' an approach typically reserved for illegal re-entry after removal or deportation (which is a felony dealt with under Section 1326 of the U.S. Code). At a speech in San Diego in May 2018, Sessions outlined a hardline approach to illegal border crossings and vowed to separate children from the parents and guardians whom federal border agents would be rounding up for criminal prosecution by U.S. Attorneys: I have put in place a 'zero tolerance' policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you make false statements to an immigration officer or file a fraudulent asylum claim, that's a felony. If you help others to do so, that's a felony, too. You're going to jail. So if you're going to come to this country, come here legally. Don't come here illegally. 

nan

In 2018, President Donald Trump began a policy of forcing detained immigrants scheduled for criminal prosecution to wear identifying wristbands and yellow bracelets.

Neutral

On 24 May, the Washington Press web site reported that President Donald Trump had 'just begun forcing detained immigrants to wear yellow insignias,' a policy which some readers likened to Nazi Germany's practice of forcing Jews to wear yellow Star of David badges: President Donald Trump's most monstrous policy is finally becoming a reality. The Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies have begun separating migrant children from their parents and placing them in military warehouses while their parents are locked away in ICE's concentration camps. But there is another, somehow even darker, detail to the story that the administration failed to announce. They are now marking arrested immigrants with yellow insignias. The Arizona Daily Star reports that at a recent immigration hearing, Alma Jacinto, a 36-year-old Guatemalan migrant had her children taken from her - and was given a yellow 'bracelet' to indicate her status as a detained illegal immigrant. The referenced passage from the Daily Star article said that 'Jacinto wore a yellow bracelet on her left wrist, which defense lawyers said identifies parents who are arrested with their children and prosecuted in Operation Streamline, a fast-track program for illegal border crossers.' It's unclear from that description whether the referenced yellow 'bracelet' identified the arrested woman as a detainee or specifically a detainee with children, or whether it was something separate from the identifying wristbands that have long been used under Operation Streamline. (We reached out to the Star's reporters for clarification but had not heard back by press time.) Certainly the use of bracelets and/or wristbands is not part of a new policy just enacted by the Trump administration, nor something that otherwise has 'just begun.' Immigration authorities have for years used wristbands to identify immigrants scheduled for summary criminal prosecution for illegal border-crossing under a federal initiative known as Operation Streamline, which was created under the administration of George W. Bush in 2005 and continued during the Obama and Trump administrations. Operation Streamline was launched in 2005 by Michael Chertoff, then the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to the DHS, the U.S. Border Patrol piloted the initiative 'in response to an increase in illegal alien entries from countries other than Mexico in 2004 and 2005' and intended it to 'reduce the rate of alien re-entry recidivism.' Traditionally, the approach to foreign nationals crossing the U.S. border illegally from Mexico had been to stop them and send them back over the border into Mexico (an approach known as 'catch and release') or to detain them and then formally deport them. Under Operations Streamline, such persons were to be rounded up to undergo criminal prosecution in United States district courts, serve jail sentences (usually under one year), and then be deported. The initiative was jointly run by the Department of Homeland Security (in the form of the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies) and the Department of Justice (by way of U.S. Attorneys and district courts along the border). One feature of Operation Streamline is that immigrants are often processed en masse rather than in separate criminal cases. In 2014, a U.S. District Court judge in Tucson, Arizona, told the New York Times that he had once processed 70 individuals (the most the jail cells adjacent to the courtroom could accommodate) in one 30-minute session. Most defendants pled guilty to illegally crossing the border in order to obtain a shorter prison sentences. For at least five years, officials have been using bracelets to identify persons rounded up for prosecution under Operation Streamline. In early 2013, G.W. Schulz, a journalist from the Center for Investigative Reporting, examined the plight of recently deported immigrants sent back over the border to Mexico. His report contained photographic evidence of the use of the wristbands as well as the following description: What we try to do in the United States is apply criminal justice principles to immigration patterns. Whenever we saw a wristband, we knew that that individual had been processed through a program called Operation Streamline - that's where individuals are criminally prosecuted for violating immigration laws.  According to a 2015 report by the Department of Homeland Security, at the height of the operation's implementation, six out of nine southwestern border 'sectors' (in Arizona and Texas) were participating in Operation Streamline. However, by 2014 that had been reduced to just three sectors: Del Rio, Texas, where the program was first launched in 2005; Laredo, Texas; and Tucson, Arizona. During the two administrations of former president Barack Obama, the implementation of the initiative first expanded and then shrank again. Operation Streamline has never been implemented in California. U.S. Border Patrol estimates hold that the agency made almost 170,000 referrals to federal courts for criminal prosecution of illegal border-crossing between 2006 and 2011. Supporters of the policy have said the prospect of criminal prosecution and a jail sentence has proved to be an effective deterrent against illegal crossings along the Mexican border. In 2015, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake enthusiastically defended Operation Streamline, writing in a Senate Resolution that it had 'resulted in gains in border security in the Yuma sector' and was 'associated with a recidivism rate that is well below average and has seen a steady decrease in recidivism in recent years.' For 2012 and 2013, Border Patrol data show that the rate of recidivism (a person illegally entering the United States more than once in the same year) was almost three times as low among individuals processed in criminal courts under Operation Streamline than it was among individuals allowed to simply leave the United States at their own expense, a system known as 'voluntary return.' However, critics have condemned Operation Streamline as distracting law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors from targeting violent crime and drug trafficking by attempting a 'zero tolerance' approach to all those who cross the border illegally (many of whom are themselves fleeing violence and criminal gangs), overloading federal courts in border districts, costing too much, and violating the due process rights of detained immigrants by prosecuting them en masse. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the collective court hearings typical of Operation Streamline violated due process norms, because even if a large number of defendants were processed together in a courtroom, the court was still obligated to deal with each of them on an individual basis. In his ruling, Circuit Judge John Noonan wrote that: No judge, however alert, could tell whether every single person in a group of 47 or 50 affirmatively answered her questions when the answers were taken at the same time. No judge could have detected a mute response offered in the midst of a medley of voices saying 'Si.' No judge, however conscientious, could have possessed the ability to hear distinctly and accurately fifty voices at the same time. The record reflects the most that could be detected: a 'General Yes.' How different that record is from the hearing in which four of the appellants were questioned together, and the record reflects responses from 'All.' Neither an indistinct murmur or medley of yeses nor a presumption that all those brought to court by the Border Patrol must have crossed the border is sufficient to show that each defendant pleaded voluntarily. President Trump's administration has not 'just begun' the use of wristbands and bracelets nor the implementation of Operation Streamline. However, the Trump administration has signaled its intent to ramp up the use of criminal prosecutions. In April 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote to U.S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) along the southwestern border, ordering them 'to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses referred for prosecution under section 1325(a).' This order is significant, because Section 1325 of the U.S. Code relates to the misdemeanor of 'improper entry' into the United States, a charge typically brought against first-time border crossers, and historically dealt with using civil and administrative removal from the country. Now, Attorney General Sessions is pushing a policy of using criminal convictions even for first-time misdemeanor 'improper entry,' an approach typically reserved for illegal re-entry after removal or deportation (which is a felony dealt with under Section 1326 of the U.S. Code). At a speech in San Diego in May 2018, Sessions outlined a hardline approach to illegal border crossings and vowed to separate children from the parents and guardians whom federal border agents would be rounding up for criminal prosecution by U.S. Attorneys: I have put in place a 'zero tolerance' policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you make false statements to an immigration officer or file a fraudulent asylum claim, that's a felony. If you help others to do so, that's a felony, too. You're going to jail. So if you're going to come to this country, come here legally. Don't come here illegally. 

nan

In 2018, President Donald Trump began a policy of forcing detained immigrants scheduled for criminal prosecution to wear identifying wristbands and yellow bracelets.

Neutral

On 24 May, the Washington Press web site reported that President Donald Trump had 'just begun forcing detained immigrants to wear yellow insignias,' a policy which some readers likened to Nazi Germany's practice of forcing Jews to wear yellow Star of David badges: President Donald Trump's most monstrous policy is finally becoming a reality. The Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies have begun separating migrant children from their parents and placing them in military warehouses while their parents are locked away in ICE's concentration camps. But there is another, somehow even darker, detail to the story that the administration failed to announce. They are now marking arrested immigrants with yellow insignias. The Arizona Daily Star reports that at a recent immigration hearing, Alma Jacinto, a 36-year-old Guatemalan migrant had her children taken from her - and was given a yellow 'bracelet' to indicate her status as a detained illegal immigrant. The referenced passage from the Daily Star article said that 'Jacinto wore a yellow bracelet on her left wrist, which defense lawyers said identifies parents who are arrested with their children and prosecuted in Operation Streamline, a fast-track program for illegal border crossers.' It's unclear from that description whether the referenced yellow 'bracelet' identified the arrested woman as a detainee or specifically a detainee with children, or whether it was something separate from the identifying wristbands that have long been used under Operation Streamline. (We reached out to the Star's reporters for clarification but had not heard back by press time.) Certainly the use of bracelets and/or wristbands is not part of a new policy just enacted by the Trump administration, nor something that otherwise has 'just begun.' Immigration authorities have for years used wristbands to identify immigrants scheduled for summary criminal prosecution for illegal border-crossing under a federal initiative known as Operation Streamline, which was created under the administration of George W. Bush in 2005 and continued during the Obama and Trump administrations. Operation Streamline was launched in 2005 by Michael Chertoff, then the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to the DHS, the U.S. Border Patrol piloted the initiative 'in response to an increase in illegal alien entries from countries other than Mexico in 2004 and 2005' and intended it to 'reduce the rate of alien re-entry recidivism.' Traditionally, the approach to foreign nationals crossing the U.S. border illegally from Mexico had been to stop them and send them back over the border into Mexico (an approach known as 'catch and release') or to detain them and then formally deport them. Under Operations Streamline, such persons were to be rounded up to undergo criminal prosecution in United States district courts, serve jail sentences (usually under one year), and then be deported. The initiative was jointly run by the Department of Homeland Security (in the form of the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies) and the Department of Justice (by way of U.S. Attorneys and district courts along the border). One feature of Operation Streamline is that immigrants are often processed en masse rather than in separate criminal cases. In 2014, a U.S. District Court judge in Tucson, Arizona, told the New York Times that he had once processed 70 individuals (the most the jail cells adjacent to the courtroom could accommodate) in one 30-minute session. Most defendants pled guilty to illegally crossing the border in order to obtain a shorter prison sentences. For at least five years, officials have been using bracelets to identify persons rounded up for prosecution under Operation Streamline. In early 2013, G.W. Schulz, a journalist from the Center for Investigative Reporting, examined the plight of recently deported immigrants sent back over the border to Mexico. His report contained photographic evidence of the use of the wristbands as well as the following description: What we try to do in the United States is apply criminal justice principles to immigration patterns. Whenever we saw a wristband, we knew that that individual had been processed through a program called Operation Streamline - that's where individuals are criminally prosecuted for violating immigration laws.  According to a 2015 report by the Department of Homeland Security, at the height of the operation's implementation, six out of nine southwestern border 'sectors' (in Arizona and Texas) were participating in Operation Streamline. However, by 2014 that had been reduced to just three sectors: Del Rio, Texas, where the program was first launched in 2005; Laredo, Texas; and Tucson, Arizona. During the two administrations of former president Barack Obama, the implementation of the initiative first expanded and then shrank again. Operation Streamline has never been implemented in California. U.S. Border Patrol estimates hold that the agency made almost 170,000 referrals to federal courts for criminal prosecution of illegal border-crossing between 2006 and 2011. Supporters of the policy have said the prospect of criminal prosecution and a jail sentence has proved to be an effective deterrent against illegal crossings along the Mexican border. In 2015, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake enthusiastically defended Operation Streamline, writing in a Senate Resolution that it had 'resulted in gains in border security in the Yuma sector' and was 'associated with a recidivism rate that is well below average and has seen a steady decrease in recidivism in recent years.' For 2012 and 2013, Border Patrol data show that the rate of recidivism (a person illegally entering the United States more than once in the same year) was almost three times as low among individuals processed in criminal courts under Operation Streamline than it was among individuals allowed to simply leave the United States at their own expense, a system known as 'voluntary return.' However, critics have condemned Operation Streamline as distracting law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors from targeting violent crime and drug trafficking by attempting a 'zero tolerance' approach to all those who cross the border illegally (many of whom are themselves fleeing violence and criminal gangs), overloading federal courts in border districts, costing too much, and violating the due process rights of detained immigrants by prosecuting them en masse. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the collective court hearings typical of Operation Streamline violated due process norms, because even if a large number of defendants were processed together in a courtroom, the court was still obligated to deal with each of them on an individual basis. In his ruling, Circuit Judge John Noonan wrote that: No judge, however alert, could tell whether every single person in a group of 47 or 50 affirmatively answered her questions when the answers were taken at the same time. No judge could have detected a mute response offered in the midst of a medley of voices saying 'Si.' No judge, however conscientious, could have possessed the ability to hear distinctly and accurately fifty voices at the same time. The record reflects the most that could be detected: a 'General Yes.' How different that record is from the hearing in which four of the appellants were questioned together, and the record reflects responses from 'All.' Neither an indistinct murmur or medley of yeses nor a presumption that all those brought to court by the Border Patrol must have crossed the border is sufficient to show that each defendant pleaded voluntarily. President Trump's administration has not 'just begun' the use of wristbands and bracelets nor the implementation of Operation Streamline. However, the Trump administration has signaled its intent to ramp up the use of criminal prosecutions. In April 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote to U.S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) along the southwestern border, ordering them 'to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses referred for prosecution under section 1325(a).' This order is significant, because Section 1325 of the U.S. Code relates to the misdemeanor of 'improper entry' into the United States, a charge typically brought against first-time border crossers, and historically dealt with using civil and administrative removal from the country. Now, Attorney General Sessions is pushing a policy of using criminal convictions even for first-time misdemeanor 'improper entry,' an approach typically reserved for illegal re-entry after removal or deportation (which is a felony dealt with under Section 1326 of the U.S. Code). At a speech in San Diego in May 2018, Sessions outlined a hardline approach to illegal border crossings and vowed to separate children from the parents and guardians whom federal border agents would be rounding up for criminal prosecution by U.S. Attorneys: I have put in place a 'zero tolerance' policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you make false statements to an immigration officer or file a fraudulent asylum claim, that's a felony. If you help others to do so, that's a felony, too. You're going to jail. So if you're going to come to this country, come here legally. Don't come here illegally. 

nan

In 2018, President Donald Trump began a policy of forcing detained immigrants scheduled for criminal prosecution to wear identifying wristbands and yellow bracelets.

Neutral

On 24 May, the Washington Press web site reported that President Donald Trump had 'just begun forcing detained immigrants to wear yellow insignias,' a policy which some readers likened to Nazi Germany's practice of forcing Jews to wear yellow Star of David badges: President Donald Trump's most monstrous policy is finally becoming a reality. The Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies have begun separating migrant children from their parents and placing them in military warehouses while their parents are locked away in ICE's concentration camps. But there is another, somehow even darker, detail to the story that the administration failed to announce. They are now marking arrested immigrants with yellow insignias. The Arizona Daily Star reports that at a recent immigration hearing, Alma Jacinto, a 36-year-old Guatemalan migrant had her children taken from her - and was given a yellow 'bracelet' to indicate her status as a detained illegal immigrant. The referenced passage from the Daily Star article said that 'Jacinto wore a yellow bracelet on her left wrist, which defense lawyers said identifies parents who are arrested with their children and prosecuted in Operation Streamline, a fast-track program for illegal border crossers.' It's unclear from that description whether the referenced yellow 'bracelet' identified the arrested woman as a detainee or specifically a detainee with children, or whether it was something separate from the identifying wristbands that have long been used under Operation Streamline. (We reached out to the Star's reporters for clarification but had not heard back by press time.) Certainly the use of bracelets and/or wristbands is not part of a new policy just enacted by the Trump administration, nor something that otherwise has 'just begun.' Immigration authorities have for years used wristbands to identify immigrants scheduled for summary criminal prosecution for illegal border-crossing under a federal initiative known as Operation Streamline, which was created under the administration of George W. Bush in 2005 and continued during the Obama and Trump administrations. Operation Streamline was launched in 2005 by Michael Chertoff, then the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to the DHS, the U.S. Border Patrol piloted the initiative 'in response to an increase in illegal alien entries from countries other than Mexico in 2004 and 2005' and intended it to 'reduce the rate of alien re-entry recidivism.' Traditionally, the approach to foreign nationals crossing the U.S. border illegally from Mexico had been to stop them and send them back over the border into Mexico (an approach known as 'catch and release') or to detain them and then formally deport them. Under Operations Streamline, such persons were to be rounded up to undergo criminal prosecution in United States district courts, serve jail sentences (usually under one year), and then be deported. The initiative was jointly run by the Department of Homeland Security (in the form of the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies) and the Department of Justice (by way of U.S. Attorneys and district courts along the border). One feature of Operation Streamline is that immigrants are often processed en masse rather than in separate criminal cases. In 2014, a U.S. District Court judge in Tucson, Arizona, told the New York Times that he had once processed 70 individuals (the most the jail cells adjacent to the courtroom could accommodate) in one 30-minute session. Most defendants pled guilty to illegally crossing the border in order to obtain a shorter prison sentences. For at least five years, officials have been using bracelets to identify persons rounded up for prosecution under Operation Streamline. In early 2013, G.W. Schulz, a journalist from the Center for Investigative Reporting, examined the plight of recently deported immigrants sent back over the border to Mexico. His report contained photographic evidence of the use of the wristbands as well as the following description: What we try to do in the United States is apply criminal justice principles to immigration patterns. Whenever we saw a wristband, we knew that that individual had been processed through a program called Operation Streamline - that's where individuals are criminally prosecuted for violating immigration laws.  According to a 2015 report by the Department of Homeland Security, at the height of the operation's implementation, six out of nine southwestern border 'sectors' (in Arizona and Texas) were participating in Operation Streamline. However, by 2014 that had been reduced to just three sectors: Del Rio, Texas, where the program was first launched in 2005; Laredo, Texas; and Tucson, Arizona. During the two administrations of former president Barack Obama, the implementation of the initiative first expanded and then shrank again. Operation Streamline has never been implemented in California. U.S. Border Patrol estimates hold that the agency made almost 170,000 referrals to federal courts for criminal prosecution of illegal border-crossing between 2006 and 2011. Supporters of the policy have said the prospect of criminal prosecution and a jail sentence has proved to be an effective deterrent against illegal crossings along the Mexican border. In 2015, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake enthusiastically defended Operation Streamline, writing in a Senate Resolution that it had 'resulted in gains in border security in the Yuma sector' and was 'associated with a recidivism rate that is well below average and has seen a steady decrease in recidivism in recent years.' For 2012 and 2013, Border Patrol data show that the rate of recidivism (a person illegally entering the United States more than once in the same year) was almost three times as low among individuals processed in criminal courts under Operation Streamline than it was among individuals allowed to simply leave the United States at their own expense, a system known as 'voluntary return.' However, critics have condemned Operation Streamline as distracting law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors from targeting violent crime and drug trafficking by attempting a 'zero tolerance' approach to all those who cross the border illegally (many of whom are themselves fleeing violence and criminal gangs), overloading federal courts in border districts, costing too much, and violating the due process rights of detained immigrants by prosecuting them en masse. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the collective court hearings typical of Operation Streamline violated due process norms, because even if a large number of defendants were processed together in a courtroom, the court was still obligated to deal with each of them on an individual basis. In his ruling, Circuit Judge John Noonan wrote that: No judge, however alert, could tell whether every single person in a group of 47 or 50 affirmatively answered her questions when the answers were taken at the same time. No judge could have detected a mute response offered in the midst of a medley of voices saying 'Si.' No judge, however conscientious, could have possessed the ability to hear distinctly and accurately fifty voices at the same time. The record reflects the most that could be detected: a 'General Yes.' How different that record is from the hearing in which four of the appellants were questioned together, and the record reflects responses from 'All.' Neither an indistinct murmur or medley of yeses nor a presumption that all those brought to court by the Border Patrol must have crossed the border is sufficient to show that each defendant pleaded voluntarily. President Trump's administration has not 'just begun' the use of wristbands and bracelets nor the implementation of Operation Streamline. However, the Trump administration has signaled its intent to ramp up the use of criminal prosecutions. In April 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote to U.S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) along the southwestern border, ordering them 'to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses referred for prosecution under section 1325(a).' This order is significant, because Section 1325 of the U.S. Code relates to the misdemeanor of 'improper entry' into the United States, a charge typically brought against first-time border crossers, and historically dealt with using civil and administrative removal from the country. Now, Attorney General Sessions is pushing a policy of using criminal convictions even for first-time misdemeanor 'improper entry,' an approach typically reserved for illegal re-entry after removal or deportation (which is a felony dealt with under Section 1326 of the U.S. Code). At a speech in San Diego in May 2018, Sessions outlined a hardline approach to illegal border crossings and vowed to separate children from the parents and guardians whom federal border agents would be rounding up for criminal prosecution by U.S. Attorneys: I have put in place a 'zero tolerance' policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you make false statements to an immigration officer or file a fraudulent asylum claim, that's a felony. If you help others to do so, that's a felony, too. You're going to jail. So if you're going to come to this country, come here legally. Don't come here illegally. 

nan

A physician once placed dying patients upon a scale and determined the weight of the human soul to be 21 grams.

Neutral

Most of those of a religious bent believe in life everlasting for the faithful, a continuation of the life force that reaches far beyond the limitations of mortal flesh. In such belief systems, death is not an end but a transformation: though people shed their corporeal selves at the moment of demise, that which made them unique beings lives on to rejoin the Creator. We call this intrinsic personhood 'the soul,' an entity described in the dictionary as 'The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.' Yet as much as we believe in the concept of 'soul,' this life spark remains strictly an article of faith. As central as it is to our perception of ourselves, it can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted, a state of affairs that leaves some of us uneasy. Without the soul, dead is dead. But if it could be proved to exist, a great deal of anxiety over what happens to us when we die would be vanquished. Enter Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the early 20 century: Those who believe that the body becomes lighter [at the moment of death] seem to think that the soul has weight, weight that must of necessity depart with it, and - with that brisk disregard of strict veracity which so frequenly marks discussions of this nature - have claimed that dying men, at the very moment of their decease, have been placed on delicate scales that have recorded their mortuary degravitation. But these persons have never been able to specify in just what ghoulish laboratory this took place, or what private home was so interestingly equipped, or the names and addresses of the relatives who so commendably placed scientific and religious curiosity before sentimental concern for the patient's comfort.1 The doctor postulated the soul was material and therefore had mass, ergo a measurable drop in the weight of the deceased would be noted at the moment this essence parted ways with the physical remains. The belief that human beings are possessed of souls which depart their bodies after death and that these souls have detectable physical presences were around well before the 20th century, but claims that souls have measurable mass which falls within a specific range of weights can be traced to experiments conducted by Dr. MacDougall in 1907. Dr. MacDougall, seeking to determine 'if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individuality or personality after the death of brain and body,' constructed a special bed in his office 'arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales' sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. He installed upon this bed a succession of six patients in the end stages of terminal illnesses (four from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes); observed them before, during, and after the process of death; and measured any corresponding changes in weight. He then attempted to eliminate as many physiological explanations for the observed results as he could conceive: The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat. During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come. At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce. This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds. The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss. There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it?2 MacDougall repeated his experiment with fifteen dogs and observed that 'the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.' This result seemingly corroborated MacDougall's hypothesis that the loss in weight recorded as humans expired was due to the soul's departure from the body, since (according to his religious doctrine) animals have no souls. (MacDougall's explanation that 'the ideal tests on dogs would be obtained in those dying from some disease that rendered them much exhausted and incapable of struggle' but 'it was not my fortune to get dogs dying from such sickness' led author Mary Roach to observe that 'barring a local outbreak of distemper, one is forced to conjecture that the good doctor calmly poisoned fifteen healthy canines for his little exercise in biological theology.') In March 1907 accounts of MacDougall's experiments were published in the New York Times and the medical journal American Medicine, prompting what Mary Roach described as an 'acrid debate' in the latter's letters column: Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men's weight and the dogs' failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December ...3 It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases: '[S]uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.' 'The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains.' 'My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later.' 'In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value.' 'My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes.' 'My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam.' So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that 'the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.') Dr. MacDougall admitted in his journal article that his experiments would have to repeated many times with similar results before any conclusions could be drawn from them: If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life.I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance.2 Nonetheless, MacDougall believed he was onto something - four years later the New York Times reported in a front-page story that he had moved on to experiments which he hoped would allow him to take pictures of the soul: Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, who has experimented much in the observation of death, in an interview published here to-day expressed doubt that the experiments with X rays about to be made at the University of Pennsylvania will be successful in picturing the human soul, because the X ray is in reality a shadow picture. He admits, however, that at the moment of death the soul substance might become so agitated as to reduce the obstruction that the bone of the skull offers ordinarily to the Roentgen ray and might therefore be shown on the plate as a lighter spot on the dark shadow of the bone.Dr. McDougall is convinced from a dozen experiments with dying people that the soul substance gives off a light resembling that of the interstellar ether. The weight of the soul he has determined to be from one-half ounce to nearly an ounce and a quarter.4 MacDougall seems not to have made any more experimental breakthroughs regarding the measurement of the human soul after 1911 (at least, none considered remarkable enough to have been reported in the pages of the New York Times), and he passed away in 1920. Nonetheless, his legacy lives on in the oft-expressed maxim that the human soul weighs 21 grams. (At the moment of death, MacDougall's first test subject decreased in weight by three-fourths of an ounce, which is 21.3 grams.) What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death - the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove: More prevalent is the other belief, expressed in the phrase 'dead weight,' that a body weighs more after death. But it only seems to weigh more. We carry our own bodies about so easily that we are unaware of what an exertion it really requires. And when, in some emergency that forces us to bear the additional weight of another body, we feel a gravitational pull of from two hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds, we are astonished and assume that the other body has somehow acquired additional heaviness. The weight of a corpse, or even of an amputated limb, is startling when felt for the first time. A husky man, flourishing his arms about, has no idea that they weigh as much as twenty-pound sacks of sugar; and a jitterbugging girl doesn't realize that she is throwing a couple of forty-pound legs around as if they were ping-pong balls.1 Sightings: The title of the 2003 film 21 Grams was taken from this belief.

nan

A physician once placed dying patients upon a scale and determined the weight of the human soul to be 21 grams.

Neutral

Most of those of a religious bent believe in life everlasting for the faithful, a continuation of the life force that reaches far beyond the limitations of mortal flesh. In such belief systems, death is not an end but a transformation: though people shed their corporeal selves at the moment of demise, that which made them unique beings lives on to rejoin the Creator. We call this intrinsic personhood 'the soul,' an entity described in the dictionary as 'The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.' Yet as much as we believe in the concept of 'soul,' this life spark remains strictly an article of faith. As central as it is to our perception of ourselves, it can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted, a state of affairs that leaves some of us uneasy. Without the soul, dead is dead. But if it could be proved to exist, a great deal of anxiety over what happens to us when we die would be vanquished. Enter Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the early 20 century: Those who believe that the body becomes lighter [at the moment of death] seem to think that the soul has weight, weight that must of necessity depart with it, and - with that brisk disregard of strict veracity which so frequenly marks discussions of this nature - have claimed that dying men, at the very moment of their decease, have been placed on delicate scales that have recorded their mortuary degravitation. But these persons have never been able to specify in just what ghoulish laboratory this took place, or what private home was so interestingly equipped, or the names and addresses of the relatives who so commendably placed scientific and religious curiosity before sentimental concern for the patient's comfort.1 The doctor postulated the soul was material and therefore had mass, ergo a measurable drop in the weight of the deceased would be noted at the moment this essence parted ways with the physical remains. The belief that human beings are possessed of souls which depart their bodies after death and that these souls have detectable physical presences were around well before the 20th century, but claims that souls have measurable mass which falls within a specific range of weights can be traced to experiments conducted by Dr. MacDougall in 1907. Dr. MacDougall, seeking to determine 'if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individuality or personality after the death of brain and body,' constructed a special bed in his office 'arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales' sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. He installed upon this bed a succession of six patients in the end stages of terminal illnesses (four from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes); observed them before, during, and after the process of death; and measured any corresponding changes in weight. He then attempted to eliminate as many physiological explanations for the observed results as he could conceive: The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat. During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come. At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce. This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds. The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss. There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it?2 MacDougall repeated his experiment with fifteen dogs and observed that 'the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.' This result seemingly corroborated MacDougall's hypothesis that the loss in weight recorded as humans expired was due to the soul's departure from the body, since (according to his religious doctrine) animals have no souls. (MacDougall's explanation that 'the ideal tests on dogs would be obtained in those dying from some disease that rendered them much exhausted and incapable of struggle' but 'it was not my fortune to get dogs dying from such sickness' led author Mary Roach to observe that 'barring a local outbreak of distemper, one is forced to conjecture that the good doctor calmly poisoned fifteen healthy canines for his little exercise in biological theology.') In March 1907 accounts of MacDougall's experiments were published in the New York Times and the medical journal American Medicine, prompting what Mary Roach described as an 'acrid debate' in the latter's letters column: Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men's weight and the dogs' failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December ...3 It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases: '[S]uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.' 'The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains.' 'My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later.' 'In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value.' 'My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes.' 'My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam.' So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that 'the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.') Dr. MacDougall admitted in his journal article that his experiments would have to repeated many times with similar results before any conclusions could be drawn from them: If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life.I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance.2 Nonetheless, MacDougall believed he was onto something - four years later the New York Times reported in a front-page story that he had moved on to experiments which he hoped would allow him to take pictures of the soul: Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, who has experimented much in the observation of death, in an interview published here to-day expressed doubt that the experiments with X rays about to be made at the University of Pennsylvania will be successful in picturing the human soul, because the X ray is in reality a shadow picture. He admits, however, that at the moment of death the soul substance might become so agitated as to reduce the obstruction that the bone of the skull offers ordinarily to the Roentgen ray and might therefore be shown on the plate as a lighter spot on the dark shadow of the bone.Dr. McDougall is convinced from a dozen experiments with dying people that the soul substance gives off a light resembling that of the interstellar ether. The weight of the soul he has determined to be from one-half ounce to nearly an ounce and a quarter.4 MacDougall seems not to have made any more experimental breakthroughs regarding the measurement of the human soul after 1911 (at least, none considered remarkable enough to have been reported in the pages of the New York Times), and he passed away in 1920. Nonetheless, his legacy lives on in the oft-expressed maxim that the human soul weighs 21 grams. (At the moment of death, MacDougall's first test subject decreased in weight by three-fourths of an ounce, which is 21.3 grams.) What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death - the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove: More prevalent is the other belief, expressed in the phrase 'dead weight,' that a body weighs more after death. But it only seems to weigh more. We carry our own bodies about so easily that we are unaware of what an exertion it really requires. And when, in some emergency that forces us to bear the additional weight of another body, we feel a gravitational pull of from two hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds, we are astonished and assume that the other body has somehow acquired additional heaviness. The weight of a corpse, or even of an amputated limb, is startling when felt for the first time. A husky man, flourishing his arms about, has no idea that they weigh as much as twenty-pound sacks of sugar; and a jitterbugging girl doesn't realize that she is throwing a couple of forty-pound legs around as if they were ping-pong balls.1 Sightings: The title of the 2003 film 21 Grams was taken from this belief.

nan

A physician once placed dying patients upon a scale and determined the weight of the human soul to be 21 grams.

Neutral

Most of those of a religious bent believe in life everlasting for the faithful, a continuation of the life force that reaches far beyond the limitations of mortal flesh. In such belief systems, death is not an end but a transformation: though people shed their corporeal selves at the moment of demise, that which made them unique beings lives on to rejoin the Creator. We call this intrinsic personhood 'the soul,' an entity described in the dictionary as 'The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.' Yet as much as we believe in the concept of 'soul,' this life spark remains strictly an article of faith. As central as it is to our perception of ourselves, it can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted, a state of affairs that leaves some of us uneasy. Without the soul, dead is dead. But if it could be proved to exist, a great deal of anxiety over what happens to us when we die would be vanquished. Enter Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the early 20 century: Those who believe that the body becomes lighter [at the moment of death] seem to think that the soul has weight, weight that must of necessity depart with it, and - with that brisk disregard of strict veracity which so frequenly marks discussions of this nature - have claimed that dying men, at the very moment of their decease, have been placed on delicate scales that have recorded their mortuary degravitation. But these persons have never been able to specify in just what ghoulish laboratory this took place, or what private home was so interestingly equipped, or the names and addresses of the relatives who so commendably placed scientific and religious curiosity before sentimental concern for the patient's comfort.1 The doctor postulated the soul was material and therefore had mass, ergo a measurable drop in the weight of the deceased would be noted at the moment this essence parted ways with the physical remains. The belief that human beings are possessed of souls which depart their bodies after death and that these souls have detectable physical presences were around well before the 20th century, but claims that souls have measurable mass which falls within a specific range of weights can be traced to experiments conducted by Dr. MacDougall in 1907. Dr. MacDougall, seeking to determine 'if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individuality or personality after the death of brain and body,' constructed a special bed in his office 'arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales' sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. He installed upon this bed a succession of six patients in the end stages of terminal illnesses (four from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes); observed them before, during, and after the process of death; and measured any corresponding changes in weight. He then attempted to eliminate as many physiological explanations for the observed results as he could conceive: The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat. During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come. At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce. This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds. The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss. There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it?2 MacDougall repeated his experiment with fifteen dogs and observed that 'the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.' This result seemingly corroborated MacDougall's hypothesis that the loss in weight recorded as humans expired was due to the soul's departure from the body, since (according to his religious doctrine) animals have no souls. (MacDougall's explanation that 'the ideal tests on dogs would be obtained in those dying from some disease that rendered them much exhausted and incapable of struggle' but 'it was not my fortune to get dogs dying from such sickness' led author Mary Roach to observe that 'barring a local outbreak of distemper, one is forced to conjecture that the good doctor calmly poisoned fifteen healthy canines for his little exercise in biological theology.') In March 1907 accounts of MacDougall's experiments were published in the New York Times and the medical journal American Medicine, prompting what Mary Roach described as an 'acrid debate' in the latter's letters column: Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men's weight and the dogs' failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December ...3 It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases: '[S]uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.' 'The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains.' 'My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later.' 'In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value.' 'My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes.' 'My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam.' So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that 'the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.') Dr. MacDougall admitted in his journal article that his experiments would have to repeated many times with similar results before any conclusions could be drawn from them: If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life.I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance.2 Nonetheless, MacDougall believed he was onto something - four years later the New York Times reported in a front-page story that he had moved on to experiments which he hoped would allow him to take pictures of the soul: Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, who has experimented much in the observation of death, in an interview published here to-day expressed doubt that the experiments with X rays about to be made at the University of Pennsylvania will be successful in picturing the human soul, because the X ray is in reality a shadow picture. He admits, however, that at the moment of death the soul substance might become so agitated as to reduce the obstruction that the bone of the skull offers ordinarily to the Roentgen ray and might therefore be shown on the plate as a lighter spot on the dark shadow of the bone.Dr. McDougall is convinced from a dozen experiments with dying people that the soul substance gives off a light resembling that of the interstellar ether. The weight of the soul he has determined to be from one-half ounce to nearly an ounce and a quarter.4 MacDougall seems not to have made any more experimental breakthroughs regarding the measurement of the human soul after 1911 (at least, none considered remarkable enough to have been reported in the pages of the New York Times), and he passed away in 1920. Nonetheless, his legacy lives on in the oft-expressed maxim that the human soul weighs 21 grams. (At the moment of death, MacDougall's first test subject decreased in weight by three-fourths of an ounce, which is 21.3 grams.) What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death - the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove: More prevalent is the other belief, expressed in the phrase 'dead weight,' that a body weighs more after death. But it only seems to weigh more. We carry our own bodies about so easily that we are unaware of what an exertion it really requires. And when, in some emergency that forces us to bear the additional weight of another body, we feel a gravitational pull of from two hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds, we are astonished and assume that the other body has somehow acquired additional heaviness. The weight of a corpse, or even of an amputated limb, is startling when felt for the first time. A husky man, flourishing his arms about, has no idea that they weigh as much as twenty-pound sacks of sugar; and a jitterbugging girl doesn't realize that she is throwing a couple of forty-pound legs around as if they were ping-pong balls.1 Sightings: The title of the 2003 film 21 Grams was taken from this belief.

nan

A physician once placed dying patients upon a scale and determined the weight of the human soul to be 21 grams.

Neutral

Most of those of a religious bent believe in life everlasting for the faithful, a continuation of the life force that reaches far beyond the limitations of mortal flesh. In such belief systems, death is not an end but a transformation: though people shed their corporeal selves at the moment of demise, that which made them unique beings lives on to rejoin the Creator. We call this intrinsic personhood 'the soul,' an entity described in the dictionary as 'The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.' Yet as much as we believe in the concept of 'soul,' this life spark remains strictly an article of faith. As central as it is to our perception of ourselves, it can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted, a state of affairs that leaves some of us uneasy. Without the soul, dead is dead. But if it could be proved to exist, a great deal of anxiety over what happens to us when we die would be vanquished. Enter Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the early 20 century: Those who believe that the body becomes lighter [at the moment of death] seem to think that the soul has weight, weight that must of necessity depart with it, and - with that brisk disregard of strict veracity which so frequenly marks discussions of this nature - have claimed that dying men, at the very moment of their decease, have been placed on delicate scales that have recorded their mortuary degravitation. But these persons have never been able to specify in just what ghoulish laboratory this took place, or what private home was so interestingly equipped, or the names and addresses of the relatives who so commendably placed scientific and religious curiosity before sentimental concern for the patient's comfort.1 The doctor postulated the soul was material and therefore had mass, ergo a measurable drop in the weight of the deceased would be noted at the moment this essence parted ways with the physical remains. The belief that human beings are possessed of souls which depart their bodies after death and that these souls have detectable physical presences were around well before the 20th century, but claims that souls have measurable mass which falls within a specific range of weights can be traced to experiments conducted by Dr. MacDougall in 1907. Dr. MacDougall, seeking to determine 'if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individuality or personality after the death of brain and body,' constructed a special bed in his office 'arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales' sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. He installed upon this bed a succession of six patients in the end stages of terminal illnesses (four from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes); observed them before, during, and after the process of death; and measured any corresponding changes in weight. He then attempted to eliminate as many physiological explanations for the observed results as he could conceive: The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat. During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come. At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce. This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds. The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss. There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it?2 MacDougall repeated his experiment with fifteen dogs and observed that 'the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.' This result seemingly corroborated MacDougall's hypothesis that the loss in weight recorded as humans expired was due to the soul's departure from the body, since (according to his religious doctrine) animals have no souls. (MacDougall's explanation that 'the ideal tests on dogs would be obtained in those dying from some disease that rendered them much exhausted and incapable of struggle' but 'it was not my fortune to get dogs dying from such sickness' led author Mary Roach to observe that 'barring a local outbreak of distemper, one is forced to conjecture that the good doctor calmly poisoned fifteen healthy canines for his little exercise in biological theology.') In March 1907 accounts of MacDougall's experiments were published in the New York Times and the medical journal American Medicine, prompting what Mary Roach described as an 'acrid debate' in the latter's letters column: Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men's weight and the dogs' failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December ...3 It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases: '[S]uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.' 'The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains.' 'My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later.' 'In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value.' 'My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes.' 'My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam.' So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that 'the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.') Dr. MacDougall admitted in his journal article that his experiments would have to repeated many times with similar results before any conclusions could be drawn from them: If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life.I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance.2 Nonetheless, MacDougall believed he was onto something - four years later the New York Times reported in a front-page story that he had moved on to experiments which he hoped would allow him to take pictures of the soul: Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, who has experimented much in the observation of death, in an interview published here to-day expressed doubt that the experiments with X rays about to be made at the University of Pennsylvania will be successful in picturing the human soul, because the X ray is in reality a shadow picture. He admits, however, that at the moment of death the soul substance might become so agitated as to reduce the obstruction that the bone of the skull offers ordinarily to the Roentgen ray and might therefore be shown on the plate as a lighter spot on the dark shadow of the bone.Dr. McDougall is convinced from a dozen experiments with dying people that the soul substance gives off a light resembling that of the interstellar ether. The weight of the soul he has determined to be from one-half ounce to nearly an ounce and a quarter.4 MacDougall seems not to have made any more experimental breakthroughs regarding the measurement of the human soul after 1911 (at least, none considered remarkable enough to have been reported in the pages of the New York Times), and he passed away in 1920. Nonetheless, his legacy lives on in the oft-expressed maxim that the human soul weighs 21 grams. (At the moment of death, MacDougall's first test subject decreased in weight by three-fourths of an ounce, which is 21.3 grams.) What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death - the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove: More prevalent is the other belief, expressed in the phrase 'dead weight,' that a body weighs more after death. But it only seems to weigh more. We carry our own bodies about so easily that we are unaware of what an exertion it really requires. And when, in some emergency that forces us to bear the additional weight of another body, we feel a gravitational pull of from two hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds, we are astonished and assume that the other body has somehow acquired additional heaviness. The weight of a corpse, or even of an amputated limb, is startling when felt for the first time. A husky man, flourishing his arms about, has no idea that they weigh as much as twenty-pound sacks of sugar; and a jitterbugging girl doesn't realize that she is throwing a couple of forty-pound legs around as if they were ping-pong balls.1 Sightings: The title of the 2003 film 21 Grams was taken from this belief.

nan

A physician once placed dying patients upon a scale and determined the weight of the human soul to be 21 grams.

Neutral

Most of those of a religious bent believe in life everlasting for the faithful, a continuation of the life force that reaches far beyond the limitations of mortal flesh. In such belief systems, death is not an end but a transformation: though people shed their corporeal selves at the moment of demise, that which made them unique beings lives on to rejoin the Creator. We call this intrinsic personhood 'the soul,' an entity described in the dictionary as 'The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.' Yet as much as we believe in the concept of 'soul,' this life spark remains strictly an article of faith. As central as it is to our perception of ourselves, it can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted, a state of affairs that leaves some of us uneasy. Without the soul, dead is dead. But if it could be proved to exist, a great deal of anxiety over what happens to us when we die would be vanquished. Enter Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the early 20 century: Those who believe that the body becomes lighter [at the moment of death] seem to think that the soul has weight, weight that must of necessity depart with it, and - with that brisk disregard of strict veracity which so frequenly marks discussions of this nature - have claimed that dying men, at the very moment of their decease, have been placed on delicate scales that have recorded their mortuary degravitation. But these persons have never been able to specify in just what ghoulish laboratory this took place, or what private home was so interestingly equipped, or the names and addresses of the relatives who so commendably placed scientific and religious curiosity before sentimental concern for the patient's comfort.1 The doctor postulated the soul was material and therefore had mass, ergo a measurable drop in the weight of the deceased would be noted at the moment this essence parted ways with the physical remains. The belief that human beings are possessed of souls which depart their bodies after death and that these souls have detectable physical presences were around well before the 20th century, but claims that souls have measurable mass which falls within a specific range of weights can be traced to experiments conducted by Dr. MacDougall in 1907. Dr. MacDougall, seeking to determine 'if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individuality or personality after the death of brain and body,' constructed a special bed in his office 'arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales' sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. He installed upon this bed a succession of six patients in the end stages of terminal illnesses (four from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes); observed them before, during, and after the process of death; and measured any corresponding changes in weight. He then attempted to eliminate as many physiological explanations for the observed results as he could conceive: The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat. During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come. At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce. This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds. The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss. There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it?2 MacDougall repeated his experiment with fifteen dogs and observed that 'the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.' This result seemingly corroborated MacDougall's hypothesis that the loss in weight recorded as humans expired was due to the soul's departure from the body, since (according to his religious doctrine) animals have no souls. (MacDougall's explanation that 'the ideal tests on dogs would be obtained in those dying from some disease that rendered them much exhausted and incapable of struggle' but 'it was not my fortune to get dogs dying from such sickness' led author Mary Roach to observe that 'barring a local outbreak of distemper, one is forced to conjecture that the good doctor calmly poisoned fifteen healthy canines for his little exercise in biological theology.') In March 1907 accounts of MacDougall's experiments were published in the New York Times and the medical journal American Medicine, prompting what Mary Roach described as an 'acrid debate' in the latter's letters column: Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men's weight and the dogs' failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December ...3 It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases: '[S]uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.' 'The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains.' 'My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later.' 'In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value.' 'My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes.' 'My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam.' So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that 'the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.') Dr. MacDougall admitted in his journal article that his experiments would have to repeated many times with similar results before any conclusions could be drawn from them: If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life.I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance.2 Nonetheless, MacDougall believed he was onto something - four years later the New York Times reported in a front-page story that he had moved on to experiments which he hoped would allow him to take pictures of the soul: Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, who has experimented much in the observation of death, in an interview published here to-day expressed doubt that the experiments with X rays about to be made at the University of Pennsylvania will be successful in picturing the human soul, because the X ray is in reality a shadow picture. He admits, however, that at the moment of death the soul substance might become so agitated as to reduce the obstruction that the bone of the skull offers ordinarily to the Roentgen ray and might therefore be shown on the plate as a lighter spot on the dark shadow of the bone.Dr. McDougall is convinced from a dozen experiments with dying people that the soul substance gives off a light resembling that of the interstellar ether. The weight of the soul he has determined to be from one-half ounce to nearly an ounce and a quarter.4 MacDougall seems not to have made any more experimental breakthroughs regarding the measurement of the human soul after 1911 (at least, none considered remarkable enough to have been reported in the pages of the New York Times), and he passed away in 1920. Nonetheless, his legacy lives on in the oft-expressed maxim that the human soul weighs 21 grams. (At the moment of death, MacDougall's first test subject decreased in weight by three-fourths of an ounce, which is 21.3 grams.) What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death - the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove: More prevalent is the other belief, expressed in the phrase 'dead weight,' that a body weighs more after death. But it only seems to weigh more. We carry our own bodies about so easily that we are unaware of what an exertion it really requires. And when, in some emergency that forces us to bear the additional weight of another body, we feel a gravitational pull of from two hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds, we are astonished and assume that the other body has somehow acquired additional heaviness. The weight of a corpse, or even of an amputated limb, is startling when felt for the first time. A husky man, flourishing his arms about, has no idea that they weigh as much as twenty-pound sacks of sugar; and a jitterbugging girl doesn't realize that she is throwing a couple of forty-pound legs around as if they were ping-pong balls.1 Sightings: The title of the 2003 film 21 Grams was taken from this belief.

nan

A physician once placed dying patients upon a scale and determined the weight of the human soul to be 21 grams.

Neutral

Most of those of a religious bent believe in life everlasting for the faithful, a continuation of the life force that reaches far beyond the limitations of mortal flesh. In such belief systems, death is not an end but a transformation: though people shed their corporeal selves at the moment of demise, that which made them unique beings lives on to rejoin the Creator. We call this intrinsic personhood 'the soul,' an entity described in the dictionary as 'The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.' Yet as much as we believe in the concept of 'soul,' this life spark remains strictly an article of faith. As central as it is to our perception of ourselves, it can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted, a state of affairs that leaves some of us uneasy. Without the soul, dead is dead. But if it could be proved to exist, a great deal of anxiety over what happens to us when we die would be vanquished. Enter Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the early 20 century: Those who believe that the body becomes lighter [at the moment of death] seem to think that the soul has weight, weight that must of necessity depart with it, and - with that brisk disregard of strict veracity which so frequenly marks discussions of this nature - have claimed that dying men, at the very moment of their decease, have been placed on delicate scales that have recorded their mortuary degravitation. But these persons have never been able to specify in just what ghoulish laboratory this took place, or what private home was so interestingly equipped, or the names and addresses of the relatives who so commendably placed scientific and religious curiosity before sentimental concern for the patient's comfort.1 The doctor postulated the soul was material and therefore had mass, ergo a measurable drop in the weight of the deceased would be noted at the moment this essence parted ways with the physical remains. The belief that human beings are possessed of souls which depart their bodies after death and that these souls have detectable physical presences were around well before the 20th century, but claims that souls have measurable mass which falls within a specific range of weights can be traced to experiments conducted by Dr. MacDougall in 1907. Dr. MacDougall, seeking to determine 'if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individuality or personality after the death of brain and body,' constructed a special bed in his office 'arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales' sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. He installed upon this bed a succession of six patients in the end stages of terminal illnesses (four from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes); observed them before, during, and after the process of death; and measured any corresponding changes in weight. He then attempted to eliminate as many physiological explanations for the observed results as he could conceive: The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat. During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come. At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce. This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds. The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss. There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it?2 MacDougall repeated his experiment with fifteen dogs and observed that 'the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.' This result seemingly corroborated MacDougall's hypothesis that the loss in weight recorded as humans expired was due to the soul's departure from the body, since (according to his religious doctrine) animals have no souls. (MacDougall's explanation that 'the ideal tests on dogs would be obtained in those dying from some disease that rendered them much exhausted and incapable of struggle' but 'it was not my fortune to get dogs dying from such sickness' led author Mary Roach to observe that 'barring a local outbreak of distemper, one is forced to conjecture that the good doctor calmly poisoned fifteen healthy canines for his little exercise in biological theology.') In March 1907 accounts of MacDougall's experiments were published in the New York Times and the medical journal American Medicine, prompting what Mary Roach described as an 'acrid debate' in the latter's letters column: Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men's weight and the dogs' failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December ...3 It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases: '[S]uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.' 'The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains.' 'My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later.' 'In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value.' 'My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes.' 'My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam.' So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that 'the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.') Dr. MacDougall admitted in his journal article that his experiments would have to repeated many times with similar results before any conclusions could be drawn from them: If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life.I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance.2 Nonetheless, MacDougall believed he was onto something - four years later the New York Times reported in a front-page story that he had moved on to experiments which he hoped would allow him to take pictures of the soul: Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, who has experimented much in the observation of death, in an interview published here to-day expressed doubt that the experiments with X rays about to be made at the University of Pennsylvania will be successful in picturing the human soul, because the X ray is in reality a shadow picture. He admits, however, that at the moment of death the soul substance might become so agitated as to reduce the obstruction that the bone of the skull offers ordinarily to the Roentgen ray and might therefore be shown on the plate as a lighter spot on the dark shadow of the bone.Dr. McDougall is convinced from a dozen experiments with dying people that the soul substance gives off a light resembling that of the interstellar ether. The weight of the soul he has determined to be from one-half ounce to nearly an ounce and a quarter.4 MacDougall seems not to have made any more experimental breakthroughs regarding the measurement of the human soul after 1911 (at least, none considered remarkable enough to have been reported in the pages of the New York Times), and he passed away in 1920. Nonetheless, his legacy lives on in the oft-expressed maxim that the human soul weighs 21 grams. (At the moment of death, MacDougall's first test subject decreased in weight by three-fourths of an ounce, which is 21.3 grams.) What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death - the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove: More prevalent is the other belief, expressed in the phrase 'dead weight,' that a body weighs more after death. But it only seems to weigh more. We carry our own bodies about so easily that we are unaware of what an exertion it really requires. And when, in some emergency that forces us to bear the additional weight of another body, we feel a gravitational pull of from two hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds, we are astonished and assume that the other body has somehow acquired additional heaviness. The weight of a corpse, or even of an amputated limb, is startling when felt for the first time. A husky man, flourishing his arms about, has no idea that they weigh as much as twenty-pound sacks of sugar; and a jitterbugging girl doesn't realize that she is throwing a couple of forty-pound legs around as if they were ping-pong balls.1 Sightings: The title of the 2003 film 21 Grams was taken from this belief.

nan

A physician once placed dying patients upon a scale and determined the weight of the human soul to be 21 grams.

Neutral

Most of those of a religious bent believe in life everlasting for the faithful, a continuation of the life force that reaches far beyond the limitations of mortal flesh. In such belief systems, death is not an end but a transformation: though people shed their corporeal selves at the moment of demise, that which made them unique beings lives on to rejoin the Creator. We call this intrinsic personhood 'the soul,' an entity described in the dictionary as 'The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.' Yet as much as we believe in the concept of 'soul,' this life spark remains strictly an article of faith. As central as it is to our perception of ourselves, it can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted, a state of affairs that leaves some of us uneasy. Without the soul, dead is dead. But if it could be proved to exist, a great deal of anxiety over what happens to us when we die would be vanquished. Enter Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the early 20 century: Those who believe that the body becomes lighter [at the moment of death] seem to think that the soul has weight, weight that must of necessity depart with it, and - with that brisk disregard of strict veracity which so frequenly marks discussions of this nature - have claimed that dying men, at the very moment of their decease, have been placed on delicate scales that have recorded their mortuary degravitation. But these persons have never been able to specify in just what ghoulish laboratory this took place, or what private home was so interestingly equipped, or the names and addresses of the relatives who so commendably placed scientific and religious curiosity before sentimental concern for the patient's comfort.1 The doctor postulated the soul was material and therefore had mass, ergo a measurable drop in the weight of the deceased would be noted at the moment this essence parted ways with the physical remains. The belief that human beings are possessed of souls which depart their bodies after death and that these souls have detectable physical presences were around well before the 20th century, but claims that souls have measurable mass which falls within a specific range of weights can be traced to experiments conducted by Dr. MacDougall in 1907. Dr. MacDougall, seeking to determine 'if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individuality or personality after the death of brain and body,' constructed a special bed in his office 'arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales' sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. He installed upon this bed a succession of six patients in the end stages of terminal illnesses (four from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes); observed them before, during, and after the process of death; and measured any corresponding changes in weight. He then attempted to eliminate as many physiological explanations for the observed results as he could conceive: The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat. During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come. At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce. This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds. The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss. There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it?2 MacDougall repeated his experiment with fifteen dogs and observed that 'the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.' This result seemingly corroborated MacDougall's hypothesis that the loss in weight recorded as humans expired was due to the soul's departure from the body, since (according to his religious doctrine) animals have no souls. (MacDougall's explanation that 'the ideal tests on dogs would be obtained in those dying from some disease that rendered them much exhausted and incapable of struggle' but 'it was not my fortune to get dogs dying from such sickness' led author Mary Roach to observe that 'barring a local outbreak of distemper, one is forced to conjecture that the good doctor calmly poisoned fifteen healthy canines for his little exercise in biological theology.') In March 1907 accounts of MacDougall's experiments were published in the New York Times and the medical journal American Medicine, prompting what Mary Roach described as an 'acrid debate' in the latter's letters column: Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men's weight and the dogs' failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December ...3 It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases: '[S]uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.' 'The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains.' 'My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later.' 'In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value.' 'My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes.' 'My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam.' So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that 'the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.') Dr. MacDougall admitted in his journal article that his experiments would have to repeated many times with similar results before any conclusions could be drawn from them: If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life.I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance.2 Nonetheless, MacDougall believed he was onto something - four years later the New York Times reported in a front-page story that he had moved on to experiments which he hoped would allow him to take pictures of the soul: Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, who has experimented much in the observation of death, in an interview published here to-day expressed doubt that the experiments with X rays about to be made at the University of Pennsylvania will be successful in picturing the human soul, because the X ray is in reality a shadow picture. He admits, however, that at the moment of death the soul substance might become so agitated as to reduce the obstruction that the bone of the skull offers ordinarily to the Roentgen ray and might therefore be shown on the plate as a lighter spot on the dark shadow of the bone.Dr. McDougall is convinced from a dozen experiments with dying people that the soul substance gives off a light resembling that of the interstellar ether. The weight of the soul he has determined to be from one-half ounce to nearly an ounce and a quarter.4 MacDougall seems not to have made any more experimental breakthroughs regarding the measurement of the human soul after 1911 (at least, none considered remarkable enough to have been reported in the pages of the New York Times), and he passed away in 1920. Nonetheless, his legacy lives on in the oft-expressed maxim that the human soul weighs 21 grams. (At the moment of death, MacDougall's first test subject decreased in weight by three-fourths of an ounce, which is 21.3 grams.) What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death - the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove: More prevalent is the other belief, expressed in the phrase 'dead weight,' that a body weighs more after death. But it only seems to weigh more. We carry our own bodies about so easily that we are unaware of what an exertion it really requires. And when, in some emergency that forces us to bear the additional weight of another body, we feel a gravitational pull of from two hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds, we are astonished and assume that the other body has somehow acquired additional heaviness. The weight of a corpse, or even of an amputated limb, is startling when felt for the first time. A husky man, flourishing his arms about, has no idea that they weigh as much as twenty-pound sacks of sugar; and a jitterbugging girl doesn't realize that she is throwing a couple of forty-pound legs around as if they were ping-pong balls.1 Sightings: The title of the 2003 film 21 Grams was taken from this belief.

nan

A physician once placed dying patients upon a scale and determined the weight of the human soul to be 21 grams.

Neutral

Most of those of a religious bent believe in life everlasting for the faithful, a continuation of the life force that reaches far beyond the limitations of mortal flesh. In such belief systems, death is not an end but a transformation: though people shed their corporeal selves at the moment of demise, that which made them unique beings lives on to rejoin the Creator. We call this intrinsic personhood 'the soul,' an entity described in the dictionary as 'The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.' Yet as much as we believe in the concept of 'soul,' this life spark remains strictly an article of faith. As central as it is to our perception of ourselves, it can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted, a state of affairs that leaves some of us uneasy. Without the soul, dead is dead. But if it could be proved to exist, a great deal of anxiety over what happens to us when we die would be vanquished. Enter Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the early 20 century: Those who believe that the body becomes lighter [at the moment of death] seem to think that the soul has weight, weight that must of necessity depart with it, and - with that brisk disregard of strict veracity which so frequenly marks discussions of this nature - have claimed that dying men, at the very moment of their decease, have been placed on delicate scales that have recorded their mortuary degravitation. But these persons have never been able to specify in just what ghoulish laboratory this took place, or what private home was so interestingly equipped, or the names and addresses of the relatives who so commendably placed scientific and religious curiosity before sentimental concern for the patient's comfort.1 The doctor postulated the soul was material and therefore had mass, ergo a measurable drop in the weight of the deceased would be noted at the moment this essence parted ways with the physical remains. The belief that human beings are possessed of souls which depart their bodies after death and that these souls have detectable physical presences were around well before the 20th century, but claims that souls have measurable mass which falls within a specific range of weights can be traced to experiments conducted by Dr. MacDougall in 1907. Dr. MacDougall, seeking to determine 'if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individuality or personality after the death of brain and body,' constructed a special bed in his office 'arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales' sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. He installed upon this bed a succession of six patients in the end stages of terminal illnesses (four from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes); observed them before, during, and after the process of death; and measured any corresponding changes in weight. He then attempted to eliminate as many physiological explanations for the observed results as he could conceive: The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat. During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come. At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce. This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds. The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss. There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it?2 MacDougall repeated his experiment with fifteen dogs and observed that 'the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.' This result seemingly corroborated MacDougall's hypothesis that the loss in weight recorded as humans expired was due to the soul's departure from the body, since (according to his religious doctrine) animals have no souls. (MacDougall's explanation that 'the ideal tests on dogs would be obtained in those dying from some disease that rendered them much exhausted and incapable of struggle' but 'it was not my fortune to get dogs dying from such sickness' led author Mary Roach to observe that 'barring a local outbreak of distemper, one is forced to conjecture that the good doctor calmly poisoned fifteen healthy canines for his little exercise in biological theology.') In March 1907 accounts of MacDougall's experiments were published in the New York Times and the medical journal American Medicine, prompting what Mary Roach described as an 'acrid debate' in the latter's letters column: Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men's weight and the dogs' failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December ...3 It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases: '[S]uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.' 'The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains.' 'My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later.' 'In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value.' 'My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes.' 'My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam.' So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that 'the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.') Dr. MacDougall admitted in his journal article that his experiments would have to repeated many times with similar results before any conclusions could be drawn from them: If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life.I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance.2 Nonetheless, MacDougall believed he was onto something - four years later the New York Times reported in a front-page story that he had moved on to experiments which he hoped would allow him to take pictures of the soul: Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, who has experimented much in the observation of death, in an interview published here to-day expressed doubt that the experiments with X rays about to be made at the University of Pennsylvania will be successful in picturing the human soul, because the X ray is in reality a shadow picture. He admits, however, that at the moment of death the soul substance might become so agitated as to reduce the obstruction that the bone of the skull offers ordinarily to the Roentgen ray and might therefore be shown on the plate as a lighter spot on the dark shadow of the bone.Dr. McDougall is convinced from a dozen experiments with dying people that the soul substance gives off a light resembling that of the interstellar ether. The weight of the soul he has determined to be from one-half ounce to nearly an ounce and a quarter.4 MacDougall seems not to have made any more experimental breakthroughs regarding the measurement of the human soul after 1911 (at least, none considered remarkable enough to have been reported in the pages of the New York Times), and he passed away in 1920. Nonetheless, his legacy lives on in the oft-expressed maxim that the human soul weighs 21 grams. (At the moment of death, MacDougall's first test subject decreased in weight by three-fourths of an ounce, which is 21.3 grams.) What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death - the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove: More prevalent is the other belief, expressed in the phrase 'dead weight,' that a body weighs more after death. But it only seems to weigh more. We carry our own bodies about so easily that we are unaware of what an exertion it really requires. And when, in some emergency that forces us to bear the additional weight of another body, we feel a gravitational pull of from two hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds, we are astonished and assume that the other body has somehow acquired additional heaviness. The weight of a corpse, or even of an amputated limb, is startling when felt for the first time. A husky man, flourishing his arms about, has no idea that they weigh as much as twenty-pound sacks of sugar; and a jitterbugging girl doesn't realize that she is throwing a couple of forty-pound legs around as if they were ping-pong balls.1 Sightings: The title of the 2003 film 21 Grams was taken from this belief.

nan

College students are petitioning to get the song 'White Christmas' banned due to racism.

Neutral

On 21 December 2015, MRCTV uploaded a video of reporter Dan Joseph attempting to get students at George Mason University to sign a fake petition to get the song 'White Christmas' banned from the radio: Last week, I presented some college students with a petition urging radio stations to stop playing the holiday classic 'White Christmas' because the song only focuses on 'White' Christmases. This clearly makes it racially insensitive, since it completely ignores Christmases of other colors. Students were all too willing to check their privilege and take a stand against Bing Crosby's racially charged micro-aggression. Just watch. The video was picked up by several conservative outlets and was published with titles such as: 'Liberals Demand Song 'White Christmas' Be Banned... BECAUSE RACIST!' While it's true that Joseph got some college students to sign his fake petition, this was not a very accurate way to measure college students' interest in banning 'White Christmas.' For one, this petition was started by someone with a stated agenda, and not by a group of college students. Second, Joseph had to convince several of the students to sign, prodding them with remarks such as 'You've got to check your privilege, man!' and 'stop white supremacy in the holiday season.' Lastly, Joseph claimed that he got 18 signatures in about an hour, which is hardly representative of George Mason University's student body.

nan

A woman in Sevilla, Spain, was 'cut in half' in a fatal elevator accident in a hospital that occurred shortly after she gave birth.

Neutral

On 20 August 2017, a blog post on the web site Science 2.0 reproduced a grisly news story out of Spain that opened as follows: A woman coming from a caesarean section in the Valme hospital died, trapped by an elevator She spent two hours with her feet dangling in the elevator shaft until she was rescued by firefighters A 25-year-old Gypsy woman, who had just left the waking room after giving birth (a caesarean section was performed), has died this afternoon when her body was severed by an elevator at Valme's hospital in Seville while she Was being transferred with the baby in bed from the second floor to the third, where Maternity is located, according to the union Csi-f. Science 2.0 reason for reproducing this tragic account was an apparent protest against the practices of the British 'gutter press' and recent legal changes affecting the presentation of Spanish news reports via Google: A woman has died in a tragic accident shortly after giving birth by caesarean section. It is unfortunate that, due to a new Spanish Law which requires media to invoice Google for even a small snippet of copyright material, Google no longer feeds Spanish news to its Google News pages. In consequence of that law, it falls to English-speaking journalists to tell the world about events in Spain. That would not be a problem except for the fact that the papers which first picked up this story constitute Britain's gutter press. They have sensationalised and distorted this tragic event for the sake of click-bait headlines and their commercial bottom line. The accident referenced in that post did take place: 25-year-old Rocío Cortés was killed in a freak accident at Hospital de Valme in Sevilla, Spain on 19 August 2017. She was being taken into an elevator en route to her room after giving birth to her third child when the elevator began going up, even though Cortés had not been fully placed inside. Her head was subsequently trapped in the elevator shaft, killing her. Hospital officials attributed Cortés' death to a 'severe cranial trauma' and said that the elevator had passed an inspection on 12 August 2017. Her family sued not only the hospital but the company that evaluated the elevator. However, Science 2.0 did not directly translate the Spanish news reporting; rather, they ran an online translation stating that Cortés' 'body was severed,' an unclear wording that led to claims the unfortunate victim had been 'cut in half.' Other news outlets reported more specifically that Cortés was 'decapitated' or that her head was crushed. Science 2.0 elaborated on how their sharing the account of Cortés' death related to the site's ostensible subject matter: What this has to do with science is - science cannot thrive without accurate reporting. By showing how some media sensationalises and distorts I hope to show evidence of British news sources not to be trusted in matters scientific, such as climate change. But besides not citing any specific examples of British news outlets misrepresenting the story of Cortés' fatal accident, Science 2.0 didn't demonstrate that her death had been obscured by Google News' lack of Spanish news in their newsfeed. A search of Google itself provided several examples of Spanish news sites' covering the story, and searching for Cortés' name turned up coverage of her death published by English-language news media outlets.

nan

A woman in Sevilla, Spain, was 'cut in half' in a fatal elevator accident in a hospital that occurred shortly after she gave birth.

Neutral

On 20 August 2017, a blog post on the web site Science 2.0 reproduced a grisly news story out of Spain that opened as follows: A woman coming from a caesarean section in the Valme hospital died, trapped by an elevator She spent two hours with her feet dangling in the elevator shaft until she was rescued by firefighters A 25-year-old Gypsy woman, who had just left the waking room after giving birth (a caesarean section was performed), has died this afternoon when her body was severed by an elevator at Valme's hospital in Seville while she Was being transferred with the baby in bed from the second floor to the third, where Maternity is located, according to the union Csi-f. Science 2.0 reason for reproducing this tragic account was an apparent protest against the practices of the British 'gutter press' and recent legal changes affecting the presentation of Spanish news reports via Google: A woman has died in a tragic accident shortly after giving birth by caesarean section. It is unfortunate that, due to a new Spanish Law which requires media to invoice Google for even a small snippet of copyright material, Google no longer feeds Spanish news to its Google News pages. In consequence of that law, it falls to English-speaking journalists to tell the world about events in Spain. That would not be a problem except for the fact that the papers which first picked up this story constitute Britain's gutter press. They have sensationalised and distorted this tragic event for the sake of click-bait headlines and their commercial bottom line. The accident referenced in that post did take place: 25-year-old Rocío Cortés was killed in a freak accident at Hospital de Valme in Sevilla, Spain on 19 August 2017. She was being taken into an elevator en route to her room after giving birth to her third child when the elevator began going up, even though Cortés had not been fully placed inside. Her head was subsequently trapped in the elevator shaft, killing her. Hospital officials attributed Cortés' death to a 'severe cranial trauma' and said that the elevator had passed an inspection on 12 August 2017. Her family sued not only the hospital but the company that evaluated the elevator. However, Science 2.0 did not directly translate the Spanish news reporting; rather, they ran an online translation stating that Cortés' 'body was severed,' an unclear wording that led to claims the unfortunate victim had been 'cut in half.' Other news outlets reported more specifically that Cortés was 'decapitated' or that her head was crushed. Science 2.0 elaborated on how their sharing the account of Cortés' death related to the site's ostensible subject matter: What this has to do with science is - science cannot thrive without accurate reporting. By showing how some media sensationalises and distorts I hope to show evidence of British news sources not to be trusted in matters scientific, such as climate change. But besides not citing any specific examples of British news outlets misrepresenting the story of Cortés' fatal accident, Science 2.0 didn't demonstrate that her death had been obscured by Google News' lack of Spanish news in their newsfeed. A search of Google itself provided several examples of Spanish news sites' covering the story, and searching for Cortés' name turned up coverage of her death published by English-language news media outlets.

nan

A woman in Sevilla, Spain, was 'cut in half' in a fatal elevator accident in a hospital that occurred shortly after she gave birth.

Neutral

On 20 August 2017, a blog post on the web site Science 2.0 reproduced a grisly news story out of Spain that opened as follows: A woman coming from a caesarean section in the Valme hospital died, trapped by an elevator She spent two hours with her feet dangling in the elevator shaft until she was rescued by firefighters A 25-year-old Gypsy woman, who had just left the waking room after giving birth (a caesarean section was performed), has died this afternoon when her body was severed by an elevator at Valme's hospital in Seville while she Was being transferred with the baby in bed from the second floor to the third, where Maternity is located, according to the union Csi-f. Science 2.0 reason for reproducing this tragic account was an apparent protest against the practices of the British 'gutter press' and recent legal changes affecting the presentation of Spanish news reports via Google: A woman has died in a tragic accident shortly after giving birth by caesarean section. It is unfortunate that, due to a new Spanish Law which requires media to invoice Google for even a small snippet of copyright material, Google no longer feeds Spanish news to its Google News pages. In consequence of that law, it falls to English-speaking journalists to tell the world about events in Spain. That would not be a problem except for the fact that the papers which first picked up this story constitute Britain's gutter press. They have sensationalised and distorted this tragic event for the sake of click-bait headlines and their commercial bottom line. The accident referenced in that post did take place: 25-year-old Rocío Cortés was killed in a freak accident at Hospital de Valme in Sevilla, Spain on 19 August 2017. She was being taken into an elevator en route to her room after giving birth to her third child when the elevator began going up, even though Cortés had not been fully placed inside. Her head was subsequently trapped in the elevator shaft, killing her. Hospital officials attributed Cortés' death to a 'severe cranial trauma' and said that the elevator had passed an inspection on 12 August 2017. Her family sued not only the hospital but the company that evaluated the elevator. However, Science 2.0 did not directly translate the Spanish news reporting; rather, they ran an online translation stating that Cortés' 'body was severed,' an unclear wording that led to claims the unfortunate victim had been 'cut in half.' Other news outlets reported more specifically that Cortés was 'decapitated' or that her head was crushed. Science 2.0 elaborated on how their sharing the account of Cortés' death related to the site's ostensible subject matter: What this has to do with science is - science cannot thrive without accurate reporting. By showing how some media sensationalises and distorts I hope to show evidence of British news sources not to be trusted in matters scientific, such as climate change. But besides not citing any specific examples of British news outlets misrepresenting the story of Cortés' fatal accident, Science 2.0 didn't demonstrate that her death had been obscured by Google News' lack of Spanish news in their newsfeed. A search of Google itself provided several examples of Spanish news sites' covering the story, and searching for Cortés' name turned up coverage of her death published by English-language news media outlets.

nan

Photographs show sign-bearing Muslim protesters at a 'Religion of Peace' demonstration in London.

Neutral

A series of photographs of sign-bearing Muslim protesters were taken during a 3 February 2006 protest staged in London by Muslims angry over the publication in Scandinavian periodicals of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad (not as a demonstation of Islam as a 'religion of peace'): The trigger for the latest clash of cultures was the publication by the Danish newspaper Jyllends-Posten on September 30 [2005] of 12 cartoons of Muhammad. A biographer of the prophet had complained that no one would dare to illustrate his book, and the newspaper challenged cartoonists to draw pictures of the prophet in a self-declared battle for freedom of speech.One submission showed Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban; in another he tells dead suicide bombers that he has run out of virgins with which to reward them. Any portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous in Islam, lest it encourages idolatry. In October [2005] ambassadors from ten Muslim countries complained to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, who refused to interfere with the press's freedom. But the issue began to boil [in January 2006] after the cartoons appeared in Magazinet, a Christian newspaper in Norway, and on the website of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet. An estimated 500 to 700 demonstrators marched from Regent's Park Mosque to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge during the protest. MP David Davis, the shadow home secretary, condemned messages displayed on some of the protesters' placards as an 'incitement to murder': Clearly, some of these placards are incitement to violence, and indeed incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.Whatever your view on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder. MP David Winnick, a member of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, called for the prosecution and deportation of some of the demonstrators: Mr Winnick said: 'The cartoons were deeply offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims. But it is totally unacceptable that, on British soil, there should be thugs demonstrating for people to be beheaded and actually glorifying the atrocities of July 7.'It is to be hoped that prosecutions will follow very quickly indeed.' He said those responsible who were temporarily in Britain should be deported, even it meant stripping them of permission previously given to remain in the country. The Walsall North MP added that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain 'have the same distaste as the rest of us about these thugs'. 'I hope it will be the last time we ever see such a demonstration, totally unacceptable to the Muslim community,' he said. Other Muslims maintained the protesters were extremists not representative of mainstream British Muslims: Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said the demonstration in London should have been stopped by police because the group had been advocating violence.He said the protesters 'did not represent British Muslims'. Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: 'The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way. 'I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people.' He said that Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was 'outrageous' for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence. 'We believe it [the protest] should have been banned and the march stopped. 'It's irrelevant whether it's Muslims causing hatred or anyone else - freedom of speech has to be responsible.' No arrests were made at the time, according to police, due to the danger posed by the size and nature of the crowd: As the clamour for action grew, police sources said there were no arrests because of fears of a riot. A senior Scotland Yard officer said: 'We have to take the overall nature of the protesters into account. If they are overheated and emotional we don't go in.'It's like a risk assessment; you have to look at the crowd you are dealing with. If we went in to arrest one person with a banner the crowd would turn on us and people would get hurt.' Although it has been circulated with the set of images displayed above, the following photograph likely comes from a completely different protest held in Luton a couple of years earlier:

nan

Photographs show sign-bearing Muslim protesters at a 'Religion of Peace' demonstration in London.

Neutral

A series of photographs of sign-bearing Muslim protesters were taken during a 3 February 2006 protest staged in London by Muslims angry over the publication in Scandinavian periodicals of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad (not as a demonstation of Islam as a 'religion of peace'): The trigger for the latest clash of cultures was the publication by the Danish newspaper Jyllends-Posten on September 30 [2005] of 12 cartoons of Muhammad. A biographer of the prophet had complained that no one would dare to illustrate his book, and the newspaper challenged cartoonists to draw pictures of the prophet in a self-declared battle for freedom of speech.One submission showed Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban; in another he tells dead suicide bombers that he has run out of virgins with which to reward them. Any portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous in Islam, lest it encourages idolatry. In October [2005] ambassadors from ten Muslim countries complained to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, who refused to interfere with the press's freedom. But the issue began to boil [in January 2006] after the cartoons appeared in Magazinet, a Christian newspaper in Norway, and on the website of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet. An estimated 500 to 700 demonstrators marched from Regent's Park Mosque to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge during the protest. MP David Davis, the shadow home secretary, condemned messages displayed on some of the protesters' placards as an 'incitement to murder': Clearly, some of these placards are incitement to violence, and indeed incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.Whatever your view on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder. MP David Winnick, a member of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, called for the prosecution and deportation of some of the demonstrators: Mr Winnick said: 'The cartoons were deeply offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims. But it is totally unacceptable that, on British soil, there should be thugs demonstrating for people to be beheaded and actually glorifying the atrocities of July 7.'It is to be hoped that prosecutions will follow very quickly indeed.' He said those responsible who were temporarily in Britain should be deported, even it meant stripping them of permission previously given to remain in the country. The Walsall North MP added that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain 'have the same distaste as the rest of us about these thugs'. 'I hope it will be the last time we ever see such a demonstration, totally unacceptable to the Muslim community,' he said. Other Muslims maintained the protesters were extremists not representative of mainstream British Muslims: Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said the demonstration in London should have been stopped by police because the group had been advocating violence.He said the protesters 'did not represent British Muslims'. Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: 'The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way. 'I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people.' He said that Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was 'outrageous' for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence. 'We believe it [the protest] should have been banned and the march stopped. 'It's irrelevant whether it's Muslims causing hatred or anyone else - freedom of speech has to be responsible.' No arrests were made at the time, according to police, due to the danger posed by the size and nature of the crowd: As the clamour for action grew, police sources said there were no arrests because of fears of a riot. A senior Scotland Yard officer said: 'We have to take the overall nature of the protesters into account. If they are overheated and emotional we don't go in.'It's like a risk assessment; you have to look at the crowd you are dealing with. If we went in to arrest one person with a banner the crowd would turn on us and people would get hurt.' Although it has been circulated with the set of images displayed above, the following photograph likely comes from a completely different protest held in Luton a couple of years earlier:

nan

Photographs show sign-bearing Muslim protesters at a 'Religion of Peace' demonstration in London.

Neutral

A series of photographs of sign-bearing Muslim protesters were taken during a 3 February 2006 protest staged in London by Muslims angry over the publication in Scandinavian periodicals of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad (not as a demonstation of Islam as a 'religion of peace'): The trigger for the latest clash of cultures was the publication by the Danish newspaper Jyllends-Posten on September 30 [2005] of 12 cartoons of Muhammad. A biographer of the prophet had complained that no one would dare to illustrate his book, and the newspaper challenged cartoonists to draw pictures of the prophet in a self-declared battle for freedom of speech.One submission showed Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban; in another he tells dead suicide bombers that he has run out of virgins with which to reward them. Any portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous in Islam, lest it encourages idolatry. In October [2005] ambassadors from ten Muslim countries complained to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, who refused to interfere with the press's freedom. But the issue began to boil [in January 2006] after the cartoons appeared in Magazinet, a Christian newspaper in Norway, and on the website of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet. An estimated 500 to 700 demonstrators marched from Regent's Park Mosque to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge during the protest. MP David Davis, the shadow home secretary, condemned messages displayed on some of the protesters' placards as an 'incitement to murder': Clearly, some of these placards are incitement to violence, and indeed incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.Whatever your view on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder. MP David Winnick, a member of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, called for the prosecution and deportation of some of the demonstrators: Mr Winnick said: 'The cartoons were deeply offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims. But it is totally unacceptable that, on British soil, there should be thugs demonstrating for people to be beheaded and actually glorifying the atrocities of July 7.'It is to be hoped that prosecutions will follow very quickly indeed.' He said those responsible who were temporarily in Britain should be deported, even it meant stripping them of permission previously given to remain in the country. The Walsall North MP added that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain 'have the same distaste as the rest of us about these thugs'. 'I hope it will be the last time we ever see such a demonstration, totally unacceptable to the Muslim community,' he said. Other Muslims maintained the protesters were extremists not representative of mainstream British Muslims: Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said the demonstration in London should have been stopped by police because the group had been advocating violence.He said the protesters 'did not represent British Muslims'. Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: 'The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way. 'I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people.' He said that Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was 'outrageous' for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence. 'We believe it [the protest] should have been banned and the march stopped. 'It's irrelevant whether it's Muslims causing hatred or anyone else - freedom of speech has to be responsible.' No arrests were made at the time, according to police, due to the danger posed by the size and nature of the crowd: As the clamour for action grew, police sources said there were no arrests because of fears of a riot. A senior Scotland Yard officer said: 'We have to take the overall nature of the protesters into account. If they are overheated and emotional we don't go in.'It's like a risk assessment; you have to look at the crowd you are dealing with. If we went in to arrest one person with a banner the crowd would turn on us and people would get hurt.' Although it has been circulated with the set of images displayed above, the following photograph likely comes from a completely different protest held in Luton a couple of years earlier:

nan

Photographs show sign-bearing Muslim protesters at a 'Religion of Peace' demonstration in London.

Neutral

A series of photographs of sign-bearing Muslim protesters were taken during a 3 February 2006 protest staged in London by Muslims angry over the publication in Scandinavian periodicals of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad (not as a demonstation of Islam as a 'religion of peace'): The trigger for the latest clash of cultures was the publication by the Danish newspaper Jyllends-Posten on September 30 [2005] of 12 cartoons of Muhammad. A biographer of the prophet had complained that no one would dare to illustrate his book, and the newspaper challenged cartoonists to draw pictures of the prophet in a self-declared battle for freedom of speech.One submission showed Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban; in another he tells dead suicide bombers that he has run out of virgins with which to reward them. Any portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous in Islam, lest it encourages idolatry. In October [2005] ambassadors from ten Muslim countries complained to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, who refused to interfere with the press's freedom. But the issue began to boil [in January 2006] after the cartoons appeared in Magazinet, a Christian newspaper in Norway, and on the website of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet. An estimated 500 to 700 demonstrators marched from Regent's Park Mosque to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge during the protest. MP David Davis, the shadow home secretary, condemned messages displayed on some of the protesters' placards as an 'incitement to murder': Clearly, some of these placards are incitement to violence, and indeed incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.Whatever your view on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder. MP David Winnick, a member of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, called for the prosecution and deportation of some of the demonstrators: Mr Winnick said: 'The cartoons were deeply offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims. But it is totally unacceptable that, on British soil, there should be thugs demonstrating for people to be beheaded and actually glorifying the atrocities of July 7.'It is to be hoped that prosecutions will follow very quickly indeed.' He said those responsible who were temporarily in Britain should be deported, even it meant stripping them of permission previously given to remain in the country. The Walsall North MP added that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain 'have the same distaste as the rest of us about these thugs'. 'I hope it will be the last time we ever see such a demonstration, totally unacceptable to the Muslim community,' he said. Other Muslims maintained the protesters were extremists not representative of mainstream British Muslims: Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said the demonstration in London should have been stopped by police because the group had been advocating violence.He said the protesters 'did not represent British Muslims'. Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: 'The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way. 'I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people.' He said that Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was 'outrageous' for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence. 'We believe it [the protest] should have been banned and the march stopped. 'It's irrelevant whether it's Muslims causing hatred or anyone else - freedom of speech has to be responsible.' No arrests were made at the time, according to police, due to the danger posed by the size and nature of the crowd: As the clamour for action grew, police sources said there were no arrests because of fears of a riot. A senior Scotland Yard officer said: 'We have to take the overall nature of the protesters into account. If they are overheated and emotional we don't go in.'It's like a risk assessment; you have to look at the crowd you are dealing with. If we went in to arrest one person with a banner the crowd would turn on us and people would get hurt.' Although it has been circulated with the set of images displayed above, the following photograph likely comes from a completely different protest held in Luton a couple of years earlier:

nan

Photographs show sign-bearing Muslim protesters at a 'Religion of Peace' demonstration in London.

Neutral

A series of photographs of sign-bearing Muslim protesters were taken during a 3 February 2006 protest staged in London by Muslims angry over the publication in Scandinavian periodicals of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad (not as a demonstation of Islam as a 'religion of peace'): The trigger for the latest clash of cultures was the publication by the Danish newspaper Jyllends-Posten on September 30 [2005] of 12 cartoons of Muhammad. A biographer of the prophet had complained that no one would dare to illustrate his book, and the newspaper challenged cartoonists to draw pictures of the prophet in a self-declared battle for freedom of speech.One submission showed Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban; in another he tells dead suicide bombers that he has run out of virgins with which to reward them. Any portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous in Islam, lest it encourages idolatry. In October [2005] ambassadors from ten Muslim countries complained to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, who refused to interfere with the press's freedom. But the issue began to boil [in January 2006] after the cartoons appeared in Magazinet, a Christian newspaper in Norway, and on the website of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet. An estimated 500 to 700 demonstrators marched from Regent's Park Mosque to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge during the protest. MP David Davis, the shadow home secretary, condemned messages displayed on some of the protesters' placards as an 'incitement to murder': Clearly, some of these placards are incitement to violence, and indeed incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.Whatever your view on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder. MP David Winnick, a member of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, called for the prosecution and deportation of some of the demonstrators: Mr Winnick said: 'The cartoons were deeply offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims. But it is totally unacceptable that, on British soil, there should be thugs demonstrating for people to be beheaded and actually glorifying the atrocities of July 7.'It is to be hoped that prosecutions will follow very quickly indeed.' He said those responsible who were temporarily in Britain should be deported, even it meant stripping them of permission previously given to remain in the country. The Walsall North MP added that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain 'have the same distaste as the rest of us about these thugs'. 'I hope it will be the last time we ever see such a demonstration, totally unacceptable to the Muslim community,' he said. Other Muslims maintained the protesters were extremists not representative of mainstream British Muslims: Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said the demonstration in London should have been stopped by police because the group had been advocating violence.He said the protesters 'did not represent British Muslims'. Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: 'The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way. 'I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people.' He said that Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was 'outrageous' for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence. 'We believe it [the protest] should have been banned and the march stopped. 'It's irrelevant whether it's Muslims causing hatred or anyone else - freedom of speech has to be responsible.' No arrests were made at the time, according to police, due to the danger posed by the size and nature of the crowd: As the clamour for action grew, police sources said there were no arrests because of fears of a riot. A senior Scotland Yard officer said: 'We have to take the overall nature of the protesters into account. If they are overheated and emotional we don't go in.'It's like a risk assessment; you have to look at the crowd you are dealing with. If we went in to arrest one person with a banner the crowd would turn on us and people would get hurt.' Although it has been circulated with the set of images displayed above, the following photograph likely comes from a completely different protest held in Luton a couple of years earlier:

nan

NASA will hire someone (with a secret security clearance) to ensure alien life doesn't make its way to Earth.

Neutral

On 2 August 2017, USA Today reported on a NASA job posting for a 'planetary protection officer' in a way that - while sure to boost page views - took serious liberties with the nature of, and need for, the position advertised. Several other web sites reprinted the USA Today article, using headlines like 'NASA is Hiring Someone to Protect Earth from Aliens,' which stated: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently looking for someone with a secret security clearance to ensure alien life, or 'organic-constituent and biological contamination' doesn't make its way back in a space ship. While this statement is technically true, it misrepresents of the nature of the work performed by the planetary protection officer - the most significant aspect of which is to prevent other planets and space objects from becoming contaminated by us. The NASA job posting makes this clear: This position is assigned to Office of Safety and Mission Assurance for Planetary Protection. Planetary protection is concerned with the avoidance of organic-constituent and biological contamination in human and robotic space exploration. NASA maintains policies for planetary protection applicable to all space flight missions that may intentionally or unintentionally carry Earth organisms and organic constituents to the planets or other solar system bodies, and any mission employing spacecraft, which are intended to return to Earth and its biosphere with samples from extraterrestrial targets of exploration. This policy is based on federal requirements and international treaties and agreements. And on their web site, the Planetary Protection Office also describes the two-way nature of the job: Planetary protection is essential for several important reasons: to preserve our ability to study other worlds as they exist in their natural states; to avoid contamination that would obscure our ability to find life elsewhere - if it exists; and to ensure that we take prudent precautions to protect Earth's biosphere in case it does. Typically, planetary protection is divided into two major components: forward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of explored solar system bodies; and backward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of Earth as a result of returned extraterrestrial samples. This NASA position, and the concept of planetary protection in general, is far from new. The role of planetary protection officer dates back to 1963, when the organization formed a position they dubbed the planetary quarantine officer. This position was later reorganized to carry out NASA's commitment to principles set forth in the 1967 'Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,' which says: States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose. By law, the position of planetary protection officer has a term-limit - three years with an option to extend the post by two years - necessitating regular job announcements. Given that NASA deals with classified defense projects, it is not shocking that the job would come with security clearance, either. The current planetary protection officer, Catharine Conley, spoke to Scientific American about the duties of her job: The purpose is explicitly to protect the activities that humans want to do. Initially that would be science, but other things will be done in the future as well. If you wanted to drill into an aquifer on Mars, it would be in the interest of future colonists that you keep the drilling clean because organisms can grow in the aquifer and change the conditions so that it is no longer available. We've seen that happen on Earth. That would be really unfortunate. Speaking in the forward of a NASA-published history of planetary protection, Conley described a personal experience that illustrated the importance of planetary protection: My interest in planetary protection is much more personal. As part of my laboratory's research on muscle atrophy, my first spaceflight experiment was flown on the last mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia that tragically disintegrated during reentry on 1 February 2003. Surprisingly, when we opened our recovered hardware several months after the accident, many of our experimental animals had survived the crash. Inadvertently, our research had demonstrated that, if properly shielded, even multicellular animals could survive a meteoritic-style entry event, one of the key steps required for the natural transport of living organisms between planetary bodies. This recognition makes it even more critical that we don't carry life from Earth with us on missions to search for life elsewhere-otherwise, if we find some, we might not be able to tell the difference! To be fair to USA Today, the job does involve protecting Earth from any potential biological contamination brought back home from space as well. For example, the upcoming Mars 2020 Rover mission has floated the idea of caching samples on the surface of the planet for later return to Earth by another mission. Such proposals must be evaluated by and designed in conjunction with the planetary protection officer to make sure nothing biologically native to Mars would contaminate Earth. However, the majority of missions in NASA's immediate future are either Earth-observing missions or robotic missions to Mars or potentially far off rocky moons like Europa that will not return to Earth. That means much of the job will entail designing strategies to prevent the potential for contamination to these places from Earth, and not - as lightly suggested by USA Today - serving as an intergalactic 'Men in Black' agent.

nan

NASA will hire someone (with a secret security clearance) to ensure alien life doesn't make its way to Earth.

Neutral

On 2 August 2017, USA Today reported on a NASA job posting for a 'planetary protection officer' in a way that - while sure to boost page views - took serious liberties with the nature of, and need for, the position advertised. Several other web sites reprinted the USA Today article, using headlines like 'NASA is Hiring Someone to Protect Earth from Aliens,' which stated: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently looking for someone with a secret security clearance to ensure alien life, or 'organic-constituent and biological contamination' doesn't make its way back in a space ship. While this statement is technically true, it misrepresents of the nature of the work performed by the planetary protection officer - the most significant aspect of which is to prevent other planets and space objects from becoming contaminated by us. The NASA job posting makes this clear: This position is assigned to Office of Safety and Mission Assurance for Planetary Protection. Planetary protection is concerned with the avoidance of organic-constituent and biological contamination in human and robotic space exploration. NASA maintains policies for planetary protection applicable to all space flight missions that may intentionally or unintentionally carry Earth organisms and organic constituents to the planets or other solar system bodies, and any mission employing spacecraft, which are intended to return to Earth and its biosphere with samples from extraterrestrial targets of exploration. This policy is based on federal requirements and international treaties and agreements. And on their web site, the Planetary Protection Office also describes the two-way nature of the job: Planetary protection is essential for several important reasons: to preserve our ability to study other worlds as they exist in their natural states; to avoid contamination that would obscure our ability to find life elsewhere - if it exists; and to ensure that we take prudent precautions to protect Earth's biosphere in case it does. Typically, planetary protection is divided into two major components: forward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of explored solar system bodies; and backward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of Earth as a result of returned extraterrestrial samples. This NASA position, and the concept of planetary protection in general, is far from new. The role of planetary protection officer dates back to 1963, when the organization formed a position they dubbed the planetary quarantine officer. This position was later reorganized to carry out NASA's commitment to principles set forth in the 1967 'Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,' which says: States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose. By law, the position of planetary protection officer has a term-limit - three years with an option to extend the post by two years - necessitating regular job announcements. Given that NASA deals with classified defense projects, it is not shocking that the job would come with security clearance, either. The current planetary protection officer, Catharine Conley, spoke to Scientific American about the duties of her job: The purpose is explicitly to protect the activities that humans want to do. Initially that would be science, but other things will be done in the future as well. If you wanted to drill into an aquifer on Mars, it would be in the interest of future colonists that you keep the drilling clean because organisms can grow in the aquifer and change the conditions so that it is no longer available. We've seen that happen on Earth. That would be really unfortunate. Speaking in the forward of a NASA-published history of planetary protection, Conley described a personal experience that illustrated the importance of planetary protection: My interest in planetary protection is much more personal. As part of my laboratory's research on muscle atrophy, my first spaceflight experiment was flown on the last mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia that tragically disintegrated during reentry on 1 February 2003. Surprisingly, when we opened our recovered hardware several months after the accident, many of our experimental animals had survived the crash. Inadvertently, our research had demonstrated that, if properly shielded, even multicellular animals could survive a meteoritic-style entry event, one of the key steps required for the natural transport of living organisms between planetary bodies. This recognition makes it even more critical that we don't carry life from Earth with us on missions to search for life elsewhere-otherwise, if we find some, we might not be able to tell the difference! To be fair to USA Today, the job does involve protecting Earth from any potential biological contamination brought back home from space as well. For example, the upcoming Mars 2020 Rover mission has floated the idea of caching samples on the surface of the planet for later return to Earth by another mission. Such proposals must be evaluated by and designed in conjunction with the planetary protection officer to make sure nothing biologically native to Mars would contaminate Earth. However, the majority of missions in NASA's immediate future are either Earth-observing missions or robotic missions to Mars or potentially far off rocky moons like Europa that will not return to Earth. That means much of the job will entail designing strategies to prevent the potential for contamination to these places from Earth, and not - as lightly suggested by USA Today - serving as an intergalactic 'Men in Black' agent.

nan

NASA will hire someone (with a secret security clearance) to ensure alien life doesn't make its way to Earth.

Neutral

On 2 August 2017, USA Today reported on a NASA job posting for a 'planetary protection officer' in a way that - while sure to boost page views - took serious liberties with the nature of, and need for, the position advertised. Several other web sites reprinted the USA Today article, using headlines like 'NASA is Hiring Someone to Protect Earth from Aliens,' which stated: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently looking for someone with a secret security clearance to ensure alien life, or 'organic-constituent and biological contamination' doesn't make its way back in a space ship. While this statement is technically true, it misrepresents of the nature of the work performed by the planetary protection officer - the most significant aspect of which is to prevent other planets and space objects from becoming contaminated by us. The NASA job posting makes this clear: This position is assigned to Office of Safety and Mission Assurance for Planetary Protection. Planetary protection is concerned with the avoidance of organic-constituent and biological contamination in human and robotic space exploration. NASA maintains policies for planetary protection applicable to all space flight missions that may intentionally or unintentionally carry Earth organisms and organic constituents to the planets or other solar system bodies, and any mission employing spacecraft, which are intended to return to Earth and its biosphere with samples from extraterrestrial targets of exploration. This policy is based on federal requirements and international treaties and agreements. And on their web site, the Planetary Protection Office also describes the two-way nature of the job: Planetary protection is essential for several important reasons: to preserve our ability to study other worlds as they exist in their natural states; to avoid contamination that would obscure our ability to find life elsewhere - if it exists; and to ensure that we take prudent precautions to protect Earth's biosphere in case it does. Typically, planetary protection is divided into two major components: forward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of explored solar system bodies; and backward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of Earth as a result of returned extraterrestrial samples. This NASA position, and the concept of planetary protection in general, is far from new. The role of planetary protection officer dates back to 1963, when the organization formed a position they dubbed the planetary quarantine officer. This position was later reorganized to carry out NASA's commitment to principles set forth in the 1967 'Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,' which says: States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose. By law, the position of planetary protection officer has a term-limit - three years with an option to extend the post by two years - necessitating regular job announcements. Given that NASA deals with classified defense projects, it is not shocking that the job would come with security clearance, either. The current planetary protection officer, Catharine Conley, spoke to Scientific American about the duties of her job: The purpose is explicitly to protect the activities that humans want to do. Initially that would be science, but other things will be done in the future as well. If you wanted to drill into an aquifer on Mars, it would be in the interest of future colonists that you keep the drilling clean because organisms can grow in the aquifer and change the conditions so that it is no longer available. We've seen that happen on Earth. That would be really unfortunate. Speaking in the forward of a NASA-published history of planetary protection, Conley described a personal experience that illustrated the importance of planetary protection: My interest in planetary protection is much more personal. As part of my laboratory's research on muscle atrophy, my first spaceflight experiment was flown on the last mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia that tragically disintegrated during reentry on 1 February 2003. Surprisingly, when we opened our recovered hardware several months after the accident, many of our experimental animals had survived the crash. Inadvertently, our research had demonstrated that, if properly shielded, even multicellular animals could survive a meteoritic-style entry event, one of the key steps required for the natural transport of living organisms between planetary bodies. This recognition makes it even more critical that we don't carry life from Earth with us on missions to search for life elsewhere-otherwise, if we find some, we might not be able to tell the difference! To be fair to USA Today, the job does involve protecting Earth from any potential biological contamination brought back home from space as well. For example, the upcoming Mars 2020 Rover mission has floated the idea of caching samples on the surface of the planet for later return to Earth by another mission. Such proposals must be evaluated by and designed in conjunction with the planetary protection officer to make sure nothing biologically native to Mars would contaminate Earth. However, the majority of missions in NASA's immediate future are either Earth-observing missions or robotic missions to Mars or potentially far off rocky moons like Europa that will not return to Earth. That means much of the job will entail designing strategies to prevent the potential for contamination to these places from Earth, and not - as lightly suggested by USA Today - serving as an intergalactic 'Men in Black' agent.

nan

NASA will hire someone (with a secret security clearance) to ensure alien life doesn't make its way to Earth.

Neutral

On 2 August 2017, USA Today reported on a NASA job posting for a 'planetary protection officer' in a way that - while sure to boost page views - took serious liberties with the nature of, and need for, the position advertised. Several other web sites reprinted the USA Today article, using headlines like 'NASA is Hiring Someone to Protect Earth from Aliens,' which stated: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently looking for someone with a secret security clearance to ensure alien life, or 'organic-constituent and biological contamination' doesn't make its way back in a space ship. While this statement is technically true, it misrepresents of the nature of the work performed by the planetary protection officer - the most significant aspect of which is to prevent other planets and space objects from becoming contaminated by us. The NASA job posting makes this clear: This position is assigned to Office of Safety and Mission Assurance for Planetary Protection. Planetary protection is concerned with the avoidance of organic-constituent and biological contamination in human and robotic space exploration. NASA maintains policies for planetary protection applicable to all space flight missions that may intentionally or unintentionally carry Earth organisms and organic constituents to the planets or other solar system bodies, and any mission employing spacecraft, which are intended to return to Earth and its biosphere with samples from extraterrestrial targets of exploration. This policy is based on federal requirements and international treaties and agreements. And on their web site, the Planetary Protection Office also describes the two-way nature of the job: Planetary protection is essential for several important reasons: to preserve our ability to study other worlds as they exist in their natural states; to avoid contamination that would obscure our ability to find life elsewhere - if it exists; and to ensure that we take prudent precautions to protect Earth's biosphere in case it does. Typically, planetary protection is divided into two major components: forward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of explored solar system bodies; and backward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of Earth as a result of returned extraterrestrial samples. This NASA position, and the concept of planetary protection in general, is far from new. The role of planetary protection officer dates back to 1963, when the organization formed a position they dubbed the planetary quarantine officer. This position was later reorganized to carry out NASA's commitment to principles set forth in the 1967 'Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,' which says: States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose. By law, the position of planetary protection officer has a term-limit - three years with an option to extend the post by two years - necessitating regular job announcements. Given that NASA deals with classified defense projects, it is not shocking that the job would come with security clearance, either. The current planetary protection officer, Catharine Conley, spoke to Scientific American about the duties of her job: The purpose is explicitly to protect the activities that humans want to do. Initially that would be science, but other things will be done in the future as well. If you wanted to drill into an aquifer on Mars, it would be in the interest of future colonists that you keep the drilling clean because organisms can grow in the aquifer and change the conditions so that it is no longer available. We've seen that happen on Earth. That would be really unfortunate. Speaking in the forward of a NASA-published history of planetary protection, Conley described a personal experience that illustrated the importance of planetary protection: My interest in planetary protection is much more personal. As part of my laboratory's research on muscle atrophy, my first spaceflight experiment was flown on the last mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia that tragically disintegrated during reentry on 1 February 2003. Surprisingly, when we opened our recovered hardware several months after the accident, many of our experimental animals had survived the crash. Inadvertently, our research had demonstrated that, if properly shielded, even multicellular animals could survive a meteoritic-style entry event, one of the key steps required for the natural transport of living organisms between planetary bodies. This recognition makes it even more critical that we don't carry life from Earth with us on missions to search for life elsewhere-otherwise, if we find some, we might not be able to tell the difference! To be fair to USA Today, the job does involve protecting Earth from any potential biological contamination brought back home from space as well. For example, the upcoming Mars 2020 Rover mission has floated the idea of caching samples on the surface of the planet for later return to Earth by another mission. Such proposals must be evaluated by and designed in conjunction with the planetary protection officer to make sure nothing biologically native to Mars would contaminate Earth. However, the majority of missions in NASA's immediate future are either Earth-observing missions or robotic missions to Mars or potentially far off rocky moons like Europa that will not return to Earth. That means much of the job will entail designing strategies to prevent the potential for contamination to these places from Earth, and not - as lightly suggested by USA Today - serving as an intergalactic 'Men in Black' agent.

nan

NASA will hire someone (with a secret security clearance) to ensure alien life doesn't make its way to Earth.

Neutral

On 2 August 2017, USA Today reported on a NASA job posting for a 'planetary protection officer' in a way that - while sure to boost page views - took serious liberties with the nature of, and need for, the position advertised. Several other web sites reprinted the USA Today article, using headlines like 'NASA is Hiring Someone to Protect Earth from Aliens,' which stated: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently looking for someone with a secret security clearance to ensure alien life, or 'organic-constituent and biological contamination' doesn't make its way back in a space ship. While this statement is technically true, it misrepresents of the nature of the work performed by the planetary protection officer - the most significant aspect of which is to prevent other planets and space objects from becoming contaminated by us. The NASA job posting makes this clear: This position is assigned to Office of Safety and Mission Assurance for Planetary Protection. Planetary protection is concerned with the avoidance of organic-constituent and biological contamination in human and robotic space exploration. NASA maintains policies for planetary protection applicable to all space flight missions that may intentionally or unintentionally carry Earth organisms and organic constituents to the planets or other solar system bodies, and any mission employing spacecraft, which are intended to return to Earth and its biosphere with samples from extraterrestrial targets of exploration. This policy is based on federal requirements and international treaties and agreements. And on their web site, the Planetary Protection Office also describes the two-way nature of the job: Planetary protection is essential for several important reasons: to preserve our ability to study other worlds as they exist in their natural states; to avoid contamination that would obscure our ability to find life elsewhere - if it exists; and to ensure that we take prudent precautions to protect Earth's biosphere in case it does. Typically, planetary protection is divided into two major components: forward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of explored solar system bodies; and backward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of Earth as a result of returned extraterrestrial samples. This NASA position, and the concept of planetary protection in general, is far from new. The role of planetary protection officer dates back to 1963, when the organization formed a position they dubbed the planetary quarantine officer. This position was later reorganized to carry out NASA's commitment to principles set forth in the 1967 'Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,' which says: States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose. By law, the position of planetary protection officer has a term-limit - three years with an option to extend the post by two years - necessitating regular job announcements. Given that NASA deals with classified defense projects, it is not shocking that the job would come with security clearance, either. The current planetary protection officer, Catharine Conley, spoke to Scientific American about the duties of her job: The purpose is explicitly to protect the activities that humans want to do. Initially that would be science, but other things will be done in the future as well. If you wanted to drill into an aquifer on Mars, it would be in the interest of future colonists that you keep the drilling clean because organisms can grow in the aquifer and change the conditions so that it is no longer available. We've seen that happen on Earth. That would be really unfortunate. Speaking in the forward of a NASA-published history of planetary protection, Conley described a personal experience that illustrated the importance of planetary protection: My interest in planetary protection is much more personal. As part of my laboratory's research on muscle atrophy, my first spaceflight experiment was flown on the last mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia that tragically disintegrated during reentry on 1 February 2003. Surprisingly, when we opened our recovered hardware several months after the accident, many of our experimental animals had survived the crash. Inadvertently, our research had demonstrated that, if properly shielded, even multicellular animals could survive a meteoritic-style entry event, one of the key steps required for the natural transport of living organisms between planetary bodies. This recognition makes it even more critical that we don't carry life from Earth with us on missions to search for life elsewhere-otherwise, if we find some, we might not be able to tell the difference! To be fair to USA Today, the job does involve protecting Earth from any potential biological contamination brought back home from space as well. For example, the upcoming Mars 2020 Rover mission has floated the idea of caching samples on the surface of the planet for later return to Earth by another mission. Such proposals must be evaluated by and designed in conjunction with the planetary protection officer to make sure nothing biologically native to Mars would contaminate Earth. However, the majority of missions in NASA's immediate future are either Earth-observing missions or robotic missions to Mars or potentially far off rocky moons like Europa that will not return to Earth. That means much of the job will entail designing strategies to prevent the potential for contamination to these places from Earth, and not - as lightly suggested by USA Today - serving as an intergalactic 'Men in Black' agent.

nan

NASA will hire someone (with a secret security clearance) to ensure alien life doesn't make its way to Earth.

Neutral

On 2 August 2017, USA Today reported on a NASA job posting for a 'planetary protection officer' in a way that - while sure to boost page views - took serious liberties with the nature of, and need for, the position advertised. Several other web sites reprinted the USA Today article, using headlines like 'NASA is Hiring Someone to Protect Earth from Aliens,' which stated: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently looking for someone with a secret security clearance to ensure alien life, or 'organic-constituent and biological contamination' doesn't make its way back in a space ship. While this statement is technically true, it misrepresents of the nature of the work performed by the planetary protection officer - the most significant aspect of which is to prevent other planets and space objects from becoming contaminated by us. The NASA job posting makes this clear: This position is assigned to Office of Safety and Mission Assurance for Planetary Protection. Planetary protection is concerned with the avoidance of organic-constituent and biological contamination in human and robotic space exploration. NASA maintains policies for planetary protection applicable to all space flight missions that may intentionally or unintentionally carry Earth organisms and organic constituents to the planets or other solar system bodies, and any mission employing spacecraft, which are intended to return to Earth and its biosphere with samples from extraterrestrial targets of exploration. This policy is based on federal requirements and international treaties and agreements. And on their web site, the Planetary Protection Office also describes the two-way nature of the job: Planetary protection is essential for several important reasons: to preserve our ability to study other worlds as they exist in their natural states; to avoid contamination that would obscure our ability to find life elsewhere - if it exists; and to ensure that we take prudent precautions to protect Earth's biosphere in case it does. Typically, planetary protection is divided into two major components: forward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of explored solar system bodies; and backward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of Earth as a result of returned extraterrestrial samples. This NASA position, and the concept of planetary protection in general, is far from new. The role of planetary protection officer dates back to 1963, when the organization formed a position they dubbed the planetary quarantine officer. This position was later reorganized to carry out NASA's commitment to principles set forth in the 1967 'Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,' which says: States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose. By law, the position of planetary protection officer has a term-limit - three years with an option to extend the post by two years - necessitating regular job announcements. Given that NASA deals with classified defense projects, it is not shocking that the job would come with security clearance, either. The current planetary protection officer, Catharine Conley, spoke to Scientific American about the duties of her job: The purpose is explicitly to protect the activities that humans want to do. Initially that would be science, but other things will be done in the future as well. If you wanted to drill into an aquifer on Mars, it would be in the interest of future colonists that you keep the drilling clean because organisms can grow in the aquifer and change the conditions so that it is no longer available. We've seen that happen on Earth. That would be really unfortunate. Speaking in the forward of a NASA-published history of planetary protection, Conley described a personal experience that illustrated the importance of planetary protection: My interest in planetary protection is much more personal. As part of my laboratory's research on muscle atrophy, my first spaceflight experiment was flown on the last mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia that tragically disintegrated during reentry on 1 February 2003. Surprisingly, when we opened our recovered hardware several months after the accident, many of our experimental animals had survived the crash. Inadvertently, our research had demonstrated that, if properly shielded, even multicellular animals could survive a meteoritic-style entry event, one of the key steps required for the natural transport of living organisms between planetary bodies. This recognition makes it even more critical that we don't carry life from Earth with us on missions to search for life elsewhere-otherwise, if we find some, we might not be able to tell the difference! To be fair to USA Today, the job does involve protecting Earth from any potential biological contamination brought back home from space as well. For example, the upcoming Mars 2020 Rover mission has floated the idea of caching samples on the surface of the planet for later return to Earth by another mission. Such proposals must be evaluated by and designed in conjunction with the planetary protection officer to make sure nothing biologically native to Mars would contaminate Earth. However, the majority of missions in NASA's immediate future are either Earth-observing missions or robotic missions to Mars or potentially far off rocky moons like Europa that will not return to Earth. That means much of the job will entail designing strategies to prevent the potential for contamination to these places from Earth, and not - as lightly suggested by USA Today - serving as an intergalactic 'Men in Black' agent.

nan

The Obama transition team kept a list of Muslims for top jobs.

Neutral

In mid-April 2019, a dated story from the Daily Caller website began circulating on social media for unclear reasons. The story, originally published on 24 October 2016, bore the headline, 'LEAKED: Obama Team Kept List of Muslims For Top Jobs, Excluded Non-Muslims.' The story is based on the contents of a stolen email leaked by document-dumping platform WikiLeaks. It was part of a now-infamous trove of Democratic National Committee (DNC) messages that were hacked and spilled online in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The Daily Caller in 2016 reported: The newest batch of John Podesta's hacked emails released by Wikileaks shows Obama's transition team kept lists of Muslim and Asian candidates for jobs in the administration. According to an email chain from 2008, John Podesta received lists of exclusively Muslims and Asians to be considered for jobs in the Obama administration. The email chain revealed that in this process, Middle Eastern Christians were purposefully excluded, or set aside in a separate list, with an aide writing, 'In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian. In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of uncertain religion (esp. Christian).' It is both true and unsurprising that per the leaked email, dated 17 October 2008, non-Muslims were excluded from a list of potential Muslim candidates to be considered for Obama administration posts. What the Daily Caller story failed to elucidate is whether lists of candidates from other demographic groups were compiled to promote general diversity in the Obama administration's ranks. Because agency heads during Obama's presidency came from various backgrounds, it's safe to say non-Muslims were not 'excluded' from consideration for top posts. Many took to social media in spring of 2019 to suggest that the information was both new, and that the effort to hire Muslim people to administration cabinet positions was somehow nefarious. As noted earlier, the story is not new and lacks key context. It was published roughly two weeks before the November 2016 election and was itself based on a document that at the time was eight years old. The email was forwarded to Podesta, who at the time served as co-chair of President-elect Obama's transition team, from Gayle Smith, who worked in the White House under both Obama and President Bill Clinton. The forwarded message included commentary on a list of potential candidates compiled by attorney and former Obama administration official Preeta Bansal to be considered for 'top Administration jobs, sub-cabinet jobs, and outside boards/agencies/policy committees.' The desire for a cabinet that contains demographic representation reflecting the American populace isn't unique to the Obama administration. In 2000, NBC News reported on similar aspirations by Obama's predecessor, then-President-elect George W. Bush. 'People that work hard and make the right decisions in life can achieve anything they want in America,' Bush is quoted as saying at the time. Bush went on to select Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to serve as consecutive Secretaries of State. They were the first African-American man and woman to hold that high-ranking post. The old Daily Caller story about the WikiLeaks document may have gained sudden online momentum because the organization's founder, Julian Assange, has been in the news. He was arrested in London on 11 April 2019 and faces extradition to the U.S. on charges that he conspired to hack a Pentagon computer in 2010. Assange, who initially faced extradition to Sweden where he was accused of sexual assault, has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in Britain for seven years to avoid arrest, long fearing extradition to the United States. But the Ecuadorian government, citing a string of alleged grievances from discourteous behavior to using its property for international espionage, evicted Assange and suspended the citizenship it bestowed upon him, making his arrest possible and bringing the long saga to an end. WikiLeaks played a key role in the morass of disinformation that flooded cyberspace in the 2016 election cycle, both pumping out troves of emails stolen from the DNC by Russian hackers and fanning the flames of a false conspiracy theory that alleged murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich, not Russian operatives, hacked the DNC. Because WikiLeaks activities vis-a-vis the election harmed the efforts of President Donald Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton, Trump and some of his supporters professed their support for the organization. After Assange's arrest, however, some prominent supporters, including Trump, have backed away, with the president stating, 'I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing ... It's not my deal in life.'

nan

U.S. border officials are now searching the cellphones of Canadian citizens entering the United States.

Neutral

In late June 2018, an article from the web site Narcity.com, headlined 'Canadians Will Now Have Their Phones Searched When Crossing the US Border,' went viral on Facebook and other social media sites. Although the article's headline employed verbiage suggesting that something had changed around the time it was published, the article's text noted it was reporting news that was already several months old: Canadians can expect to have their phones searched as a part of an added security measure when travelling to the U.S. U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a new directive in January that allows border agents to demand the passwords to travellers' phones and other electronics without probable cause. The Department of Homeland Security says such is necessary to counter crimes such as terrorism and child pornography. The source that Narcity.com linked to was a 19 January 2018 CBC article about U.S. Customs and Border Protection having issued a new directive a few weeks earlier that 'set new limits on agents, establishing criteria for when they can conduct extensive searches' of travelers' cellphones: In one of several testy exchanges during a U.S. Senate hearing [in January 2018], the [U.S.] secretary of homeland security [Kirstjen Nielsen] was pressed to explain a new policy that allows customs agents to examine the cellphones of travellers at the border. - Background: Searches of phones were skyrocketing. Border agents inspected 30,200 phones and other devices last year - an increase of nearly 60 per cent from 2016. U.S. officials say it remains a minuscule percentage of overall travellers - 0.007 per cent, or roughly one per 13,000. The Department of Homeland Security says it's necessary to combat crimes like terrorism and child pornography. - Customs agents have broad power: Immigration lawyer Henry Chang notes that one of his own colleagues once complained about a search, fearing a breach of attorney-client privilege: 'The officer said, 'I don't care,'' Chang says. He said border guards can easily refuse someone entry: 'There's ways they can mess with you,' he said. 'They can just declare you an immigration risk ... detain you, turn you away until you co-operate.... That's enough to scare people into co-operating.' -The new directive: On Jan. 4, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a new directive titled, Border Search of Electronic Devices. It actually set new limits on agents, establishing criteria for when they can conduct extensive searches, like downloading documents stored in the cloud, or uploading files into a storage drive for analysis. -Your password: Agents can demand a password to open your phone, without probable cause, Nielsen confirmed during the hearing. However, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staff attorney Sophia Cope says the directive, which she calls confusing, also allows you to refuse to do so. That, of course, is not without its consequences she says in a statement to CBC News. Your device could be seized or detained. The border agent could delay your travel or even deny entry if you are not a U.S. citizen. -The cloud: Here, there are new limits. Agents can't just start downloading old files from the cloud: 'They can search the data that is apparent on the phone,' Nielsen said. 'They can't use the phone to access anything that might be stored remotely.' As the CBC noted, 'border agents cannot stop U.S. citizens from entering the country, even if they refuse to unlock their device or provide the password' (but, as stated above, a border agent could delay travel or even deny entry to non-U.S. citizens who refuse to do so). It is difficult to determine why Narcity.com waited six months to report on a January 2018 news story, and why a source stating that U.S. officials hypothetically 'can' do something (i.e., search cellphones without cause) was changed to unequivocal assertion that it 'will' be happening (by implication to all Canadians entering the United States). Diplomatic tensions flared up between Canada and the United States in mid-2018, with a widely-reported dispute between U.S. president Donald Trump and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau possibly creating a misconception fostered by Narcity.com's article that the United States had implemented a new policy to retaliate against its Canadian neighbors. No new U.S. border policy regarding cellphone searches was implemented in June 2018, nor is it a certainty that under previously existing policy all or most Canadians entering the U.S. will have their phones searched (rather than being something that 'might' occur in isolated cases). According to the CBC, cellphones of travelers crossing the U.S. border (both Americans and non-citizens) were searched during in one out of 13,000 border crossings (or 0.007 percent of the time) in 2017.Recent Updates This article was updated on 28 June 2018 to provide additional information about U.S. border policy, and the status of the article was modified from 'Mostly False' to 'Mixture.'

nan

U.S. border officials are now searching the cellphones of Canadian citizens entering the United States.

Neutral

In late June 2018, an article from the web site Narcity.com, headlined 'Canadians Will Now Have Their Phones Searched When Crossing the US Border,' went viral on Facebook and other social media sites. Although the article's headline employed verbiage suggesting that something had changed around the time it was published, the article's text noted it was reporting news that was already several months old: Canadians can expect to have their phones searched as a part of an added security measure when travelling to the U.S. U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a new directive in January that allows border agents to demand the passwords to travellers' phones and other electronics without probable cause. The Department of Homeland Security says such is necessary to counter crimes such as terrorism and child pornography. The source that Narcity.com linked to was a 19 January 2018 CBC article about U.S. Customs and Border Protection having issued a new directive a few weeks earlier that 'set new limits on agents, establishing criteria for when they can conduct extensive searches' of travelers' cellphones: In one of several testy exchanges during a U.S. Senate hearing [in January 2018], the [U.S.] secretary of homeland security [Kirstjen Nielsen] was pressed to explain a new policy that allows customs agents to examine the cellphones of travellers at the border. - Background: Searches of phones were skyrocketing. Border agents inspected 30,200 phones and other devices last year - an increase of nearly 60 per cent from 2016. U.S. officials say it remains a minuscule percentage of overall travellers - 0.007 per cent, or roughly one per 13,000. The Department of Homeland Security says it's necessary to combat crimes like terrorism and child pornography. - Customs agents have broad power: Immigration lawyer Henry Chang notes that one of his own colleagues once complained about a search, fearing a breach of attorney-client privilege: 'The officer said, 'I don't care,'' Chang says. He said border guards can easily refuse someone entry: 'There's ways they can mess with you,' he said. 'They can just declare you an immigration risk ... detain you, turn you away until you co-operate.... That's enough to scare people into co-operating.' -The new directive: On Jan. 4, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a new directive titled, Border Search of Electronic Devices. It actually set new limits on agents, establishing criteria for when they can conduct extensive searches, like downloading documents stored in the cloud, or uploading files into a storage drive for analysis. -Your password: Agents can demand a password to open your phone, without probable cause, Nielsen confirmed during the hearing. However, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staff attorney Sophia Cope says the directive, which she calls confusing, also allows you to refuse to do so. That, of course, is not without its consequences she says in a statement to CBC News. Your device could be seized or detained. The border agent could delay your travel or even deny entry if you are not a U.S. citizen. -The cloud: Here, there are new limits. Agents can't just start downloading old files from the cloud: 'They can search the data that is apparent on the phone,' Nielsen said. 'They can't use the phone to access anything that might be stored remotely.' As the CBC noted, 'border agents cannot stop U.S. citizens from entering the country, even if they refuse to unlock their device or provide the password' (but, as stated above, a border agent could delay travel or even deny entry to non-U.S. citizens who refuse to do so). It is difficult to determine why Narcity.com waited six months to report on a January 2018 news story, and why a source stating that U.S. officials hypothetically 'can' do something (i.e., search cellphones without cause) was changed to unequivocal assertion that it 'will' be happening (by implication to all Canadians entering the United States). Diplomatic tensions flared up between Canada and the United States in mid-2018, with a widely-reported dispute between U.S. president Donald Trump and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau possibly creating a misconception fostered by Narcity.com's article that the United States had implemented a new policy to retaliate against its Canadian neighbors. No new U.S. border policy regarding cellphone searches was implemented in June 2018, nor is it a certainty that under previously existing policy all or most Canadians entering the U.S. will have their phones searched (rather than being something that 'might' occur in isolated cases). According to the CBC, cellphones of travelers crossing the U.S. border (both Americans and non-citizens) were searched during in one out of 13,000 border crossings (or 0.007 percent of the time) in 2017.Recent Updates This article was updated on 28 June 2018 to provide additional information about U.S. border policy, and the status of the article was modified from 'Mostly False' to 'Mixture.'

nan

In August 2017, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill that would force women to purchase 'rape insurance.

Neutral

On 9 August 2017, the Groopspeak web site reported that the Texas House of Representatives had passed a bill that would force women to purchase 'rape insurance.' The most populous Republican state in the country, the good ole' state of Texas, has just passed a bill in the House of Representatives that will essentially force women to buy rape insurance if they seek to have an abortion. Critics of the bill are calling it especially cruel and a detriment to women's health in general. If put into law, the bill will take effect as soon as Dec. 1 and force women to buy supplemental plans if they wish to have abortions, even if induced by rape. The article contained excerpts from a Reuters report that quotes Democratic State Representative Chris Turner as using the phrase 'rape insurance': Women and parents will be faced with the horrific decision of having to purchase 'rape insurance' to cover them if they are victimized. This is not only ridiculous, but it is cruel. The bill in question is House Bill 214. It was passed by the Texas House on 9 July 2017, and a similar bill is currently before the state Senate. If it's passed there, it will be enacted on 1 December 2017. The bill would prohibit certain health insurance plans from covering abortions, but would allow women to purchase private supplementary insurance plans that would cover abortions. The bill applies to plans purchased through the Texas health benefit exchange that was set up by the Affordable Care Act, public employee health plans, and several other kinds of insurance. It allows an exception for medically urgent abortions (those deemed necessary to prevent a woman's death or serious physical injury) but does not allow an exception for the termination of a pregnancy that arises from rape or incest or abortions where a fetal abnormality has been diagnosed. There are also certain exceptions of a more technical nature. The Texas House Research Office (HRO) published an analysis of the bill: HB 214 would prohibit certain health insurance plans from providing coverage for an elective abortion. The bill would not prevent a person from purchasing optional or supplemental coverage for elective abortion under a health benefit plan other than a qualified health plan offered through a health benefit exchange. The absence of an exception for rape and incest has proven to be the most controversial element of the bill. The HRO analysis articulates opponents' rationale as follows: The bill would not include an exception for insurance to cover abortion in the case of rape or incest. Before being faced with such a situation, a woman might not have thought she would need supplemental abortion insurance, which is one reason abortion coverage should not be excluded from basic health insurance plans. The Groopspeak article's headline is misleading - women would not be required to purchase additional insurance. However, abortions would no longer be covered in health insurance plans that are part of the Texas Obamacare exchange, meaning that women would be forced to purchase supplementary plans if they wanted to be insured for abortions. Secondly, the phrase 'rape insurance' has only been used by the bill's opponents as part of their opposition to the bill. While it's true that women would have to purchase additional insurance to cover abortion in the case of rape, they would also have to purchase additional insurance in order to cover the cost of an abortion for almost any reason, including incest or a fetal abnormality. A more comprehensive and neutral description of this supplementary insurance would therefore be 'abortion insurance,' remembering that the bill still allows across-the-board coverage for terminations deemed medically urgent.

nan

In August 2017, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill that would force women to purchase 'rape insurance.

Neutral

On 9 August 2017, the Groopspeak web site reported that the Texas House of Representatives had passed a bill that would force women to purchase 'rape insurance.' The most populous Republican state in the country, the good ole' state of Texas, has just passed a bill in the House of Representatives that will essentially force women to buy rape insurance if they seek to have an abortion. Critics of the bill are calling it especially cruel and a detriment to women's health in general. If put into law, the bill will take effect as soon as Dec. 1 and force women to buy supplemental plans if they wish to have abortions, even if induced by rape. The article contained excerpts from a Reuters report that quotes Democratic State Representative Chris Turner as using the phrase 'rape insurance': Women and parents will be faced with the horrific decision of having to purchase 'rape insurance' to cover them if they are victimized. This is not only ridiculous, but it is cruel. The bill in question is House Bill 214. It was passed by the Texas House on 9 July 2017, and a similar bill is currently before the state Senate. If it's passed there, it will be enacted on 1 December 2017. The bill would prohibit certain health insurance plans from covering abortions, but would allow women to purchase private supplementary insurance plans that would cover abortions. The bill applies to plans purchased through the Texas health benefit exchange that was set up by the Affordable Care Act, public employee health plans, and several other kinds of insurance. It allows an exception for medically urgent abortions (those deemed necessary to prevent a woman's death or serious physical injury) but does not allow an exception for the termination of a pregnancy that arises from rape or incest or abortions where a fetal abnormality has been diagnosed. There are also certain exceptions of a more technical nature. The Texas House Research Office (HRO) published an analysis of the bill: HB 214 would prohibit certain health insurance plans from providing coverage for an elective abortion. The bill would not prevent a person from purchasing optional or supplemental coverage for elective abortion under a health benefit plan other than a qualified health plan offered through a health benefit exchange. The absence of an exception for rape and incest has proven to be the most controversial element of the bill. The HRO analysis articulates opponents' rationale as follows: The bill would not include an exception for insurance to cover abortion in the case of rape or incest. Before being faced with such a situation, a woman might not have thought she would need supplemental abortion insurance, which is one reason abortion coverage should not be excluded from basic health insurance plans. The Groopspeak article's headline is misleading - women would not be required to purchase additional insurance. However, abortions would no longer be covered in health insurance plans that are part of the Texas Obamacare exchange, meaning that women would be forced to purchase supplementary plans if they wanted to be insured for abortions. Secondly, the phrase 'rape insurance' has only been used by the bill's opponents as part of their opposition to the bill. While it's true that women would have to purchase additional insurance to cover abortion in the case of rape, they would also have to purchase additional insurance in order to cover the cost of an abortion for almost any reason, including incest or a fetal abnormality. A more comprehensive and neutral description of this supplementary insurance would therefore be 'abortion insurance,' remembering that the bill still allows across-the-board coverage for terminations deemed medically urgent.

nan

In August 2017, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill that would force women to purchase 'rape insurance.

Neutral

On 9 August 2017, the Groopspeak web site reported that the Texas House of Representatives had passed a bill that would force women to purchase 'rape insurance.' The most populous Republican state in the country, the good ole' state of Texas, has just passed a bill in the House of Representatives that will essentially force women to buy rape insurance if they seek to have an abortion. Critics of the bill are calling it especially cruel and a detriment to women's health in general. If put into law, the bill will take effect as soon as Dec. 1 and force women to buy supplemental plans if they wish to have abortions, even if induced by rape. The article contained excerpts from a Reuters report that quotes Democratic State Representative Chris Turner as using the phrase 'rape insurance': Women and parents will be faced with the horrific decision of having to purchase 'rape insurance' to cover them if they are victimized. This is not only ridiculous, but it is cruel. The bill in question is House Bill 214. It was passed by the Texas House on 9 July 2017, and a similar bill is currently before the state Senate. If it's passed there, it will be enacted on 1 December 2017. The bill would prohibit certain health insurance plans from covering abortions, but would allow women to purchase private supplementary insurance plans that would cover abortions. The bill applies to plans purchased through the Texas health benefit exchange that was set up by the Affordable Care Act, public employee health plans, and several other kinds of insurance. It allows an exception for medically urgent abortions (those deemed necessary to prevent a woman's death or serious physical injury) but does not allow an exception for the termination of a pregnancy that arises from rape or incest or abortions where a fetal abnormality has been diagnosed. There are also certain exceptions of a more technical nature. The Texas House Research Office (HRO) published an analysis of the bill: HB 214 would prohibit certain health insurance plans from providing coverage for an elective abortion. The bill would not prevent a person from purchasing optional or supplemental coverage for elective abortion under a health benefit plan other than a qualified health plan offered through a health benefit exchange. The absence of an exception for rape and incest has proven to be the most controversial element of the bill. The HRO analysis articulates opponents' rationale as follows: The bill would not include an exception for insurance to cover abortion in the case of rape or incest. Before being faced with such a situation, a woman might not have thought she would need supplemental abortion insurance, which is one reason abortion coverage should not be excluded from basic health insurance plans. The Groopspeak article's headline is misleading - women would not be required to purchase additional insurance. However, abortions would no longer be covered in health insurance plans that are part of the Texas Obamacare exchange, meaning that women would be forced to purchase supplementary plans if they wanted to be insured for abortions. Secondly, the phrase 'rape insurance' has only been used by the bill's opponents as part of their opposition to the bill. While it's true that women would have to purchase additional insurance to cover abortion in the case of rape, they would also have to purchase additional insurance in order to cover the cost of an abortion for almost any reason, including incest or a fetal abnormality. A more comprehensive and neutral description of this supplementary insurance would therefore be 'abortion insurance,' remembering that the bill still allows across-the-board coverage for terminations deemed medically urgent.

nan

In August 2017, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill that would force women to purchase 'rape insurance.

Neutral

On 9 August 2017, the Groopspeak web site reported that the Texas House of Representatives had passed a bill that would force women to purchase 'rape insurance.' The most populous Republican state in the country, the good ole' state of Texas, has just passed a bill in the House of Representatives that will essentially force women to buy rape insurance if they seek to have an abortion. Critics of the bill are calling it especially cruel and a detriment to women's health in general. If put into law, the bill will take effect as soon as Dec. 1 and force women to buy supplemental plans if they wish to have abortions, even if induced by rape. The article contained excerpts from a Reuters report that quotes Democratic State Representative Chris Turner as using the phrase 'rape insurance': Women and parents will be faced with the horrific decision of having to purchase 'rape insurance' to cover them if they are victimized. This is not only ridiculous, but it is cruel. The bill in question is House Bill 214. It was passed by the Texas House on 9 July 2017, and a similar bill is currently before the state Senate. If it's passed there, it will be enacted on 1 December 2017. The bill would prohibit certain health insurance plans from covering abortions, but would allow women to purchase private supplementary insurance plans that would cover abortions. The bill applies to plans purchased through the Texas health benefit exchange that was set up by the Affordable Care Act, public employee health plans, and several other kinds of insurance. It allows an exception for medically urgent abortions (those deemed necessary to prevent a woman's death or serious physical injury) but does not allow an exception for the termination of a pregnancy that arises from rape or incest or abortions where a fetal abnormality has been diagnosed. There are also certain exceptions of a more technical nature. The Texas House Research Office (HRO) published an analysis of the bill: HB 214 would prohibit certain health insurance plans from providing coverage for an elective abortion. The bill would not prevent a person from purchasing optional or supplemental coverage for elective abortion under a health benefit plan other than a qualified health plan offered through a health benefit exchange. The absence of an exception for rape and incest has proven to be the most controversial element of the bill. The HRO analysis articulates opponents' rationale as follows: The bill would not include an exception for insurance to cover abortion in the case of rape or incest. Before being faced with such a situation, a woman might not have thought she would need supplemental abortion insurance, which is one reason abortion coverage should not be excluded from basic health insurance plans. The Groopspeak article's headline is misleading - women would not be required to purchase additional insurance. However, abortions would no longer be covered in health insurance plans that are part of the Texas Obamacare exchange, meaning that women would be forced to purchase supplementary plans if they wanted to be insured for abortions. Secondly, the phrase 'rape insurance' has only been used by the bill's opponents as part of their opposition to the bill. While it's true that women would have to purchase additional insurance to cover abortion in the case of rape, they would also have to purchase additional insurance in order to cover the cost of an abortion for almost any reason, including incest or a fetal abnormality. A more comprehensive and neutral description of this supplementary insurance would therefore be 'abortion insurance,' remembering that the bill still allows across-the-board coverage for terminations deemed medically urgent.

nan

In 2017 and 2018, teenage boys widely purchased and used a urethra-covering adhesive band called the Jiftip.

Neutral

Odd new inventions and commercial products are a frequent source of attention-grabbing news headlines, especially if they stretch credibility. That was the case in 2017, when news outlets around the world reported on Jiftip, an adhesive band designed to offer men an alternative to condoms during sex. In August 2017, Inked published an article with the headline 'Teens seal their penis holes closed to avoid using condoms!' At some point after this, probably thanks to the headline of the Inked article, the rumor mutated from an adhesive product into do-it-yourself territory, prompting a flurry of concerned e-mails to us: Apparently teens are now super glue-ing their urethras shut to avoid using condoms. I hope this is fake! I saw an article on Facebook that was so outrageous I feel it had to be wrong. It states that teens are gluing their penises shut to avoid using condoms. TEENS SEAL THEIR PENIS HOLES CLOSED TO AVOID USING CONDOMS! In August 2016, the Hong Kong-registered Sumina Global Limited registered 'Jiftip' as a trademark in the United States. Some 18 months earlier, a businessman named Momo Sumina - whose LinkedIn profile lists him as Sumina Global's marketing director - applied for a United States patent for 'seminal and urinary fluid emission arresting devices, systems, and methods of using the same.' This was a new version of his 2014 application for an invention that Sumina billed as 'Urethra Shield - Alternative to the Male Condom': In the 2016 patent application, Sumina wrote: A fluid emission arresting device is provided. In some embodiments, the fluid emission arresting device may comprise: a barrier layer made of a flexible material which may comprise a generally planar exterior surface and a generally planar interior surface. An adhesive layer may be applied to the interior surface of the barrier layer and may be configured to attach to the glans of the penis to position the barrier layer over the urethra opening to block fluid from exiting the urethra opening. In further embodiments, once the device is attached to the penis over the urethra opening, the barrier layer may prevent fluid from exiting the urethra so that the urethra may function as a fluid reservoir. United States Patent Office records suggest that the patent application has not been granted as of June 2018. In 2017, Sumina Global posted a short instructional video on how the adhesive device is purported to work:  The Jiftip web site features a shopping cart, where users can - at least in theory - purchase three Jiftip strips for $9, or ten for $24. Before completing an order, customers must agree to the following terms and conditions: There is no promise of safety, not in nature, not with Jiftip products. I will not risk using it as a condom or for preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections. Holding the ejaculation inside may not be safe for me. I understand Jiftip beta means it might fail. I will use Jiftip for novelty, pleasure, convenience, fun or entertainment purposes ONLY. Sharing or giving my Jiftip to unauthorized persons/friends has consequences, and I accept full responsibility for them. On 2nd thought, I'll send them to Jiftip.com so they can accept responsibility for themselves. I'll be thoughtful of any sex partners, meaning I'll get their approval before testing Jiftip with them. While the web site now features repeated emphatic disclaimers about the safety (or otherwise) of using Jiftip (calling it a 'backup for your pullout') the makers of the product previously made bold claims about the safety of using the adhesive to have sex without a condom, variously promoting Jiftip with the slogans 'Bareback sex without the worry' and 'feeling and freedom of raw sex is safe now.' Sumina, in his original 2014 patent application, billed his invention as an 'alternative to the male condom.' The Jiftip web site now stresses the opposite: 'Is Jiftip a condom alternative? NO! It's a sexual pleasure enhancement device.' The device certainly exists, as the detailed patent application and instructional videos make clear, and the online store embedded in the Jiftip web site would also suggest that the product is for sale. However, we could find no evidence, beyond the web site itself, of anyone actually having bought a pack of the adhesives. Despite the fact that Jiftip is such a novelty and has prompted global headlines and giggling coverage on countless radio talk shows, we were unable to find a single Facebook or Twitter post or photo by a member of the public who had decided to experiment with the widely-publicized product or signed up as a beta tester, nor have we found any product reviews written by journalists or published on consumer web sites. The product is not available for purchase on Amazon, eBay, or Google. The Jiftip web site itself features two comments from men who present themselves as having either used or ordered the product. We asked the makers of Jiftip for some figures relating to sales and beta-testing signups, as well as possible plans for future retail marketing, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. While Jiftip does exist, the prevalence of its usage appears to have been greatly exaggerated in some news reports, and there is absolutely no evidence that 'teens' are opting for it at all, much less at a higher rate than their older counterparts, which is probably a good thing.

nan

In 2017 and 2018, teenage boys widely purchased and used a urethra-covering adhesive band called the Jiftip.

Neutral

Odd new inventions and commercial products are a frequent source of attention-grabbing news headlines, especially if they stretch credibility. That was the case in 2017, when news outlets around the world reported on Jiftip, an adhesive band designed to offer men an alternative to condoms during sex. In August 2017, Inked published an article with the headline 'Teens seal their penis holes closed to avoid using condoms!' At some point after this, probably thanks to the headline of the Inked article, the rumor mutated from an adhesive product into do-it-yourself territory, prompting a flurry of concerned e-mails to us: Apparently teens are now super glue-ing their urethras shut to avoid using condoms. I hope this is fake! I saw an article on Facebook that was so outrageous I feel it had to be wrong. It states that teens are gluing their penises shut to avoid using condoms. TEENS SEAL THEIR PENIS HOLES CLOSED TO AVOID USING CONDOMS! In August 2016, the Hong Kong-registered Sumina Global Limited registered 'Jiftip' as a trademark in the United States. Some 18 months earlier, a businessman named Momo Sumina - whose LinkedIn profile lists him as Sumina Global's marketing director - applied for a United States patent for 'seminal and urinary fluid emission arresting devices, systems, and methods of using the same.' This was a new version of his 2014 application for an invention that Sumina billed as 'Urethra Shield - Alternative to the Male Condom': In the 2016 patent application, Sumina wrote: A fluid emission arresting device is provided. In some embodiments, the fluid emission arresting device may comprise: a barrier layer made of a flexible material which may comprise a generally planar exterior surface and a generally planar interior surface. An adhesive layer may be applied to the interior surface of the barrier layer and may be configured to attach to the glans of the penis to position the barrier layer over the urethra opening to block fluid from exiting the urethra opening. In further embodiments, once the device is attached to the penis over the urethra opening, the barrier layer may prevent fluid from exiting the urethra so that the urethra may function as a fluid reservoir. United States Patent Office records suggest that the patent application has not been granted as of June 2018. In 2017, Sumina Global posted a short instructional video on how the adhesive device is purported to work:  The Jiftip web site features a shopping cart, where users can - at least in theory - purchase three Jiftip strips for $9, or ten for $24. Before completing an order, customers must agree to the following terms and conditions: There is no promise of safety, not in nature, not with Jiftip products. I will not risk using it as a condom or for preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections. Holding the ejaculation inside may not be safe for me. I understand Jiftip beta means it might fail. I will use Jiftip for novelty, pleasure, convenience, fun or entertainment purposes ONLY. Sharing or giving my Jiftip to unauthorized persons/friends has consequences, and I accept full responsibility for them. On 2nd thought, I'll send them to Jiftip.com so they can accept responsibility for themselves. I'll be thoughtful of any sex partners, meaning I'll get their approval before testing Jiftip with them. While the web site now features repeated emphatic disclaimers about the safety (or otherwise) of using Jiftip (calling it a 'backup for your pullout') the makers of the product previously made bold claims about the safety of using the adhesive to have sex without a condom, variously promoting Jiftip with the slogans 'Bareback sex without the worry' and 'feeling and freedom of raw sex is safe now.' Sumina, in his original 2014 patent application, billed his invention as an 'alternative to the male condom.' The Jiftip web site now stresses the opposite: 'Is Jiftip a condom alternative? NO! It's a sexual pleasure enhancement device.' The device certainly exists, as the detailed patent application and instructional videos make clear, and the online store embedded in the Jiftip web site would also suggest that the product is for sale. However, we could find no evidence, beyond the web site itself, of anyone actually having bought a pack of the adhesives. Despite the fact that Jiftip is such a novelty and has prompted global headlines and giggling coverage on countless radio talk shows, we were unable to find a single Facebook or Twitter post or photo by a member of the public who had decided to experiment with the widely-publicized product or signed up as a beta tester, nor have we found any product reviews written by journalists or published on consumer web sites. The product is not available for purchase on Amazon, eBay, or Google. The Jiftip web site itself features two comments from men who present themselves as having either used or ordered the product. We asked the makers of Jiftip for some figures relating to sales and beta-testing signups, as well as possible plans for future retail marketing, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. While Jiftip does exist, the prevalence of its usage appears to have been greatly exaggerated in some news reports, and there is absolutely no evidence that 'teens' are opting for it at all, much less at a higher rate than their older counterparts, which is probably a good thing.

nan

After the 26 July 2016 roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention, hundreds of empty seats appeared to have been vacated by a planned protest.

Neutral

On 26 July 2016, the Democratic National Convention held a roll call vote to solidify the nomination of Hillary Clinton. When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont went last to symbolically cede the win to Clinton, what appeared to be hundreds of his pledged delegates streamed out of the hall in a planned walkout. The protest itself was well documented, as the delegates gathered in the DNC's press tent at the start of their demonstration and multiple clips of the DNC Walkout emerged. Prominent Sanders supporters shared images of what appeared to be a sea of empty seats shortly after the roll call vote: the empty seats that were once full. after they announced #HRC's nomination. #philadelphia #DNC... https://t.co/N2t98G3QCh - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 The walkout was apparently organized by the 'Coalition of 57,' a network of Sanders delegates, who issued a press release about the protest: This evening during the Democratic National Convention's floor session Bernie Sanders delegates initiated the occupation of the media tent for the purpose of ensuring that the intentions of Bernie supporters nationwide are heard in the efforts to reform and make the Democratic party stronger through genuine unity. The Coalition of 57, a grassroots communication network of Bernie delegates from across the country, issued the following message: 'The Democratic National Committee has actively introduced bias into the process of the Democratic Primary contest for a Democratic presidential nominee. This is contradictory to the spirit and intent of the party charter and ideal of being a 'big tent' party.' However, supporters of Clinton maintained the seats were empty due to delegates' leaving the hall for dinner: @edatpost Even CA has a lot of empty seats but only bc roll call vote is over & people grabbing dinner! Not a walk out!! - Asm. Luis Alejo (@AsmLuisAlejo) July 27, 2016 Reports from the floor about the permanence of the DNC Walkout remained conflicting as the night wore on. Some maintained that the delegates retook their seats, while others said that the chairs remained empty into nighttime programming: @AbbyMartin @edatpost All of those seats have been filled if you are watching the live shots 11pm EST. - Bidupedo (@bidupedo) July 27, 2016 Josh Fox, the filmmaker depicted in the above video, surmised that not all walkouts were solely in protest: 'I think some ppl left in protest but I think most ppl left bc they were demoralized,' Sanders backer @joshfoxfilm says #DNCinPHL - Rosa Goldensohn (@RosaGoldensohn) July 27, 2016 As the events played out, members of the press reported a chaotic scene with scattered accounts of rescinded access: Hey @DemConvention, media's still being denied access to general areas. A Homeland Security agent was even denied. Please sort out the mess. - Joey Parker (@JoeyABC17) July 27, 2016 Not long after, Woodley tweeted out a screenshot of a purported text message seeking delegates to fill empty seats in the California delegation's section. The authenticity of the text wasn't confirmed: this was sent 2 delegates 2 fill in seats so it didn't look so empty.amazing how easy it is 2 breed false narratives pic.twitter.com/YANWlOWLxN - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 As of 27 July 2016, numerous sources stated that delegates who left in the DNC Walkout did not return, but it was not clear how many, and whether any planned to return.

nan

After the 26 July 2016 roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention, hundreds of empty seats appeared to have been vacated by a planned protest.

Neutral

On 26 July 2016, the Democratic National Convention held a roll call vote to solidify the nomination of Hillary Clinton. When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont went last to symbolically cede the win to Clinton, what appeared to be hundreds of his pledged delegates streamed out of the hall in a planned walkout. The protest itself was well documented, as the delegates gathered in the DNC's press tent at the start of their demonstration and multiple clips of the DNC Walkout emerged. Prominent Sanders supporters shared images of what appeared to be a sea of empty seats shortly after the roll call vote: the empty seats that were once full. after they announced #HRC's nomination. #philadelphia #DNC... https://t.co/N2t98G3QCh - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 The walkout was apparently organized by the 'Coalition of 57,' a network of Sanders delegates, who issued a press release about the protest: This evening during the Democratic National Convention's floor session Bernie Sanders delegates initiated the occupation of the media tent for the purpose of ensuring that the intentions of Bernie supporters nationwide are heard in the efforts to reform and make the Democratic party stronger through genuine unity. The Coalition of 57, a grassroots communication network of Bernie delegates from across the country, issued the following message: 'The Democratic National Committee has actively introduced bias into the process of the Democratic Primary contest for a Democratic presidential nominee. This is contradictory to the spirit and intent of the party charter and ideal of being a 'big tent' party.' However, supporters of Clinton maintained the seats were empty due to delegates' leaving the hall for dinner: @edatpost Even CA has a lot of empty seats but only bc roll call vote is over & people grabbing dinner! Not a walk out!! - Asm. Luis Alejo (@AsmLuisAlejo) July 27, 2016 Reports from the floor about the permanence of the DNC Walkout remained conflicting as the night wore on. Some maintained that the delegates retook their seats, while others said that the chairs remained empty into nighttime programming: @AbbyMartin @edatpost All of those seats have been filled if you are watching the live shots 11pm EST. - Bidupedo (@bidupedo) July 27, 2016 Josh Fox, the filmmaker depicted in the above video, surmised that not all walkouts were solely in protest: 'I think some ppl left in protest but I think most ppl left bc they were demoralized,' Sanders backer @joshfoxfilm says #DNCinPHL - Rosa Goldensohn (@RosaGoldensohn) July 27, 2016 As the events played out, members of the press reported a chaotic scene with scattered accounts of rescinded access: Hey @DemConvention, media's still being denied access to general areas. A Homeland Security agent was even denied. Please sort out the mess. - Joey Parker (@JoeyABC17) July 27, 2016 Not long after, Woodley tweeted out a screenshot of a purported text message seeking delegates to fill empty seats in the California delegation's section. The authenticity of the text wasn't confirmed: this was sent 2 delegates 2 fill in seats so it didn't look so empty.amazing how easy it is 2 breed false narratives pic.twitter.com/YANWlOWLxN - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 As of 27 July 2016, numerous sources stated that delegates who left in the DNC Walkout did not return, but it was not clear how many, and whether any planned to return.

nan

After the 26 July 2016 roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention, hundreds of empty seats appeared to have been vacated by a planned protest.

Neutral

On 26 July 2016, the Democratic National Convention held a roll call vote to solidify the nomination of Hillary Clinton. When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont went last to symbolically cede the win to Clinton, what appeared to be hundreds of his pledged delegates streamed out of the hall in a planned walkout. The protest itself was well documented, as the delegates gathered in the DNC's press tent at the start of their demonstration and multiple clips of the DNC Walkout emerged. Prominent Sanders supporters shared images of what appeared to be a sea of empty seats shortly after the roll call vote: the empty seats that were once full. after they announced #HRC's nomination. #philadelphia #DNC... https://t.co/N2t98G3QCh - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 The walkout was apparently organized by the 'Coalition of 57,' a network of Sanders delegates, who issued a press release about the protest: This evening during the Democratic National Convention's floor session Bernie Sanders delegates initiated the occupation of the media tent for the purpose of ensuring that the intentions of Bernie supporters nationwide are heard in the efforts to reform and make the Democratic party stronger through genuine unity. The Coalition of 57, a grassroots communication network of Bernie delegates from across the country, issued the following message: 'The Democratic National Committee has actively introduced bias into the process of the Democratic Primary contest for a Democratic presidential nominee. This is contradictory to the spirit and intent of the party charter and ideal of being a 'big tent' party.' However, supporters of Clinton maintained the seats were empty due to delegates' leaving the hall for dinner: @edatpost Even CA has a lot of empty seats but only bc roll call vote is over & people grabbing dinner! Not a walk out!! - Asm. Luis Alejo (@AsmLuisAlejo) July 27, 2016 Reports from the floor about the permanence of the DNC Walkout remained conflicting as the night wore on. Some maintained that the delegates retook their seats, while others said that the chairs remained empty into nighttime programming: @AbbyMartin @edatpost All of those seats have been filled if you are watching the live shots 11pm EST. - Bidupedo (@bidupedo) July 27, 2016 Josh Fox, the filmmaker depicted in the above video, surmised that not all walkouts were solely in protest: 'I think some ppl left in protest but I think most ppl left bc they were demoralized,' Sanders backer @joshfoxfilm says #DNCinPHL - Rosa Goldensohn (@RosaGoldensohn) July 27, 2016 As the events played out, members of the press reported a chaotic scene with scattered accounts of rescinded access: Hey @DemConvention, media's still being denied access to general areas. A Homeland Security agent was even denied. Please sort out the mess. - Joey Parker (@JoeyABC17) July 27, 2016 Not long after, Woodley tweeted out a screenshot of a purported text message seeking delegates to fill empty seats in the California delegation's section. The authenticity of the text wasn't confirmed: this was sent 2 delegates 2 fill in seats so it didn't look so empty.amazing how easy it is 2 breed false narratives pic.twitter.com/YANWlOWLxN - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 As of 27 July 2016, numerous sources stated that delegates who left in the DNC Walkout did not return, but it was not clear how many, and whether any planned to return.

nan

After the 26 July 2016 roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention, hundreds of empty seats appeared to have been vacated by a planned protest.

Neutral

On 26 July 2016, the Democratic National Convention held a roll call vote to solidify the nomination of Hillary Clinton. When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont went last to symbolically cede the win to Clinton, what appeared to be hundreds of his pledged delegates streamed out of the hall in a planned walkout. The protest itself was well documented, as the delegates gathered in the DNC's press tent at the start of their demonstration and multiple clips of the DNC Walkout emerged. Prominent Sanders supporters shared images of what appeared to be a sea of empty seats shortly after the roll call vote: the empty seats that were once full. after they announced #HRC's nomination. #philadelphia #DNC... https://t.co/N2t98G3QCh - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 The walkout was apparently organized by the 'Coalition of 57,' a network of Sanders delegates, who issued a press release about the protest: This evening during the Democratic National Convention's floor session Bernie Sanders delegates initiated the occupation of the media tent for the purpose of ensuring that the intentions of Bernie supporters nationwide are heard in the efforts to reform and make the Democratic party stronger through genuine unity. The Coalition of 57, a grassroots communication network of Bernie delegates from across the country, issued the following message: 'The Democratic National Committee has actively introduced bias into the process of the Democratic Primary contest for a Democratic presidential nominee. This is contradictory to the spirit and intent of the party charter and ideal of being a 'big tent' party.' However, supporters of Clinton maintained the seats were empty due to delegates' leaving the hall for dinner: @edatpost Even CA has a lot of empty seats but only bc roll call vote is over & people grabbing dinner! Not a walk out!! - Asm. Luis Alejo (@AsmLuisAlejo) July 27, 2016 Reports from the floor about the permanence of the DNC Walkout remained conflicting as the night wore on. Some maintained that the delegates retook their seats, while others said that the chairs remained empty into nighttime programming: @AbbyMartin @edatpost All of those seats have been filled if you are watching the live shots 11pm EST. - Bidupedo (@bidupedo) July 27, 2016 Josh Fox, the filmmaker depicted in the above video, surmised that not all walkouts were solely in protest: 'I think some ppl left in protest but I think most ppl left bc they were demoralized,' Sanders backer @joshfoxfilm says #DNCinPHL - Rosa Goldensohn (@RosaGoldensohn) July 27, 2016 As the events played out, members of the press reported a chaotic scene with scattered accounts of rescinded access: Hey @DemConvention, media's still being denied access to general areas. A Homeland Security agent was even denied. Please sort out the mess. - Joey Parker (@JoeyABC17) July 27, 2016 Not long after, Woodley tweeted out a screenshot of a purported text message seeking delegates to fill empty seats in the California delegation's section. The authenticity of the text wasn't confirmed: this was sent 2 delegates 2 fill in seats so it didn't look so empty.amazing how easy it is 2 breed false narratives pic.twitter.com/YANWlOWLxN - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 As of 27 July 2016, numerous sources stated that delegates who left in the DNC Walkout did not return, but it was not clear how many, and whether any planned to return.

nan

After the 26 July 2016 roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention, hundreds of empty seats appeared to have been vacated by a planned protest.

Neutral

On 26 July 2016, the Democratic National Convention held a roll call vote to solidify the nomination of Hillary Clinton. When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont went last to symbolically cede the win to Clinton, what appeared to be hundreds of his pledged delegates streamed out of the hall in a planned walkout. The protest itself was well documented, as the delegates gathered in the DNC's press tent at the start of their demonstration and multiple clips of the DNC Walkout emerged. Prominent Sanders supporters shared images of what appeared to be a sea of empty seats shortly after the roll call vote: the empty seats that were once full. after they announced #HRC's nomination. #philadelphia #DNC... https://t.co/N2t98G3QCh - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 The walkout was apparently organized by the 'Coalition of 57,' a network of Sanders delegates, who issued a press release about the protest: This evening during the Democratic National Convention's floor session Bernie Sanders delegates initiated the occupation of the media tent for the purpose of ensuring that the intentions of Bernie supporters nationwide are heard in the efforts to reform and make the Democratic party stronger through genuine unity. The Coalition of 57, a grassroots communication network of Bernie delegates from across the country, issued the following message: 'The Democratic National Committee has actively introduced bias into the process of the Democratic Primary contest for a Democratic presidential nominee. This is contradictory to the spirit and intent of the party charter and ideal of being a 'big tent' party.' However, supporters of Clinton maintained the seats were empty due to delegates' leaving the hall for dinner: @edatpost Even CA has a lot of empty seats but only bc roll call vote is over & people grabbing dinner! Not a walk out!! - Asm. Luis Alejo (@AsmLuisAlejo) July 27, 2016 Reports from the floor about the permanence of the DNC Walkout remained conflicting as the night wore on. Some maintained that the delegates retook their seats, while others said that the chairs remained empty into nighttime programming: @AbbyMartin @edatpost All of those seats have been filled if you are watching the live shots 11pm EST. - Bidupedo (@bidupedo) July 27, 2016 Josh Fox, the filmmaker depicted in the above video, surmised that not all walkouts were solely in protest: 'I think some ppl left in protest but I think most ppl left bc they were demoralized,' Sanders backer @joshfoxfilm says #DNCinPHL - Rosa Goldensohn (@RosaGoldensohn) July 27, 2016 As the events played out, members of the press reported a chaotic scene with scattered accounts of rescinded access: Hey @DemConvention, media's still being denied access to general areas. A Homeland Security agent was even denied. Please sort out the mess. - Joey Parker (@JoeyABC17) July 27, 2016 Not long after, Woodley tweeted out a screenshot of a purported text message seeking delegates to fill empty seats in the California delegation's section. The authenticity of the text wasn't confirmed: this was sent 2 delegates 2 fill in seats so it didn't look so empty.amazing how easy it is 2 breed false narratives pic.twitter.com/YANWlOWLxN - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 As of 27 July 2016, numerous sources stated that delegates who left in the DNC Walkout did not return, but it was not clear how many, and whether any planned to return.

nan

After the 26 July 2016 roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention, hundreds of empty seats appeared to have been vacated by a planned protest.

Neutral

On 26 July 2016, the Democratic National Convention held a roll call vote to solidify the nomination of Hillary Clinton. When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont went last to symbolically cede the win to Clinton, what appeared to be hundreds of his pledged delegates streamed out of the hall in a planned walkout. The protest itself was well documented, as the delegates gathered in the DNC's press tent at the start of their demonstration and multiple clips of the DNC Walkout emerged. Prominent Sanders supporters shared images of what appeared to be a sea of empty seats shortly after the roll call vote: the empty seats that were once full. after they announced #HRC's nomination. #philadelphia #DNC... https://t.co/N2t98G3QCh - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 The walkout was apparently organized by the 'Coalition of 57,' a network of Sanders delegates, who issued a press release about the protest: This evening during the Democratic National Convention's floor session Bernie Sanders delegates initiated the occupation of the media tent for the purpose of ensuring that the intentions of Bernie supporters nationwide are heard in the efforts to reform and make the Democratic party stronger through genuine unity. The Coalition of 57, a grassroots communication network of Bernie delegates from across the country, issued the following message: 'The Democratic National Committee has actively introduced bias into the process of the Democratic Primary contest for a Democratic presidential nominee. This is contradictory to the spirit and intent of the party charter and ideal of being a 'big tent' party.' However, supporters of Clinton maintained the seats were empty due to delegates' leaving the hall for dinner: @edatpost Even CA has a lot of empty seats but only bc roll call vote is over & people grabbing dinner! Not a walk out!! - Asm. Luis Alejo (@AsmLuisAlejo) July 27, 2016 Reports from the floor about the permanence of the DNC Walkout remained conflicting as the night wore on. Some maintained that the delegates retook their seats, while others said that the chairs remained empty into nighttime programming: @AbbyMartin @edatpost All of those seats have been filled if you are watching the live shots 11pm EST. - Bidupedo (@bidupedo) July 27, 2016 Josh Fox, the filmmaker depicted in the above video, surmised that not all walkouts were solely in protest: 'I think some ppl left in protest but I think most ppl left bc they were demoralized,' Sanders backer @joshfoxfilm says #DNCinPHL - Rosa Goldensohn (@RosaGoldensohn) July 27, 2016 As the events played out, members of the press reported a chaotic scene with scattered accounts of rescinded access: Hey @DemConvention, media's still being denied access to general areas. A Homeland Security agent was even denied. Please sort out the mess. - Joey Parker (@JoeyABC17) July 27, 2016 Not long after, Woodley tweeted out a screenshot of a purported text message seeking delegates to fill empty seats in the California delegation's section. The authenticity of the text wasn't confirmed: this was sent 2 delegates 2 fill in seats so it didn't look so empty.amazing how easy it is 2 breed false narratives pic.twitter.com/YANWlOWLxN - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 As of 27 July 2016, numerous sources stated that delegates who left in the DNC Walkout did not return, but it was not clear how many, and whether any planned to return.

nan

After the 26 July 2016 roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention, hundreds of empty seats appeared to have been vacated by a planned protest.

Neutral

On 26 July 2016, the Democratic National Convention held a roll call vote to solidify the nomination of Hillary Clinton. When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont went last to symbolically cede the win to Clinton, what appeared to be hundreds of his pledged delegates streamed out of the hall in a planned walkout. The protest itself was well documented, as the delegates gathered in the DNC's press tent at the start of their demonstration and multiple clips of the DNC Walkout emerged. Prominent Sanders supporters shared images of what appeared to be a sea of empty seats shortly after the roll call vote: the empty seats that were once full. after they announced #HRC's nomination. #philadelphia #DNC... https://t.co/N2t98G3QCh - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 The walkout was apparently organized by the 'Coalition of 57,' a network of Sanders delegates, who issued a press release about the protest: This evening during the Democratic National Convention's floor session Bernie Sanders delegates initiated the occupation of the media tent for the purpose of ensuring that the intentions of Bernie supporters nationwide are heard in the efforts to reform and make the Democratic party stronger through genuine unity. The Coalition of 57, a grassroots communication network of Bernie delegates from across the country, issued the following message: 'The Democratic National Committee has actively introduced bias into the process of the Democratic Primary contest for a Democratic presidential nominee. This is contradictory to the spirit and intent of the party charter and ideal of being a 'big tent' party.' However, supporters of Clinton maintained the seats were empty due to delegates' leaving the hall for dinner: @edatpost Even CA has a lot of empty seats but only bc roll call vote is over & people grabbing dinner! Not a walk out!! - Asm. Luis Alejo (@AsmLuisAlejo) July 27, 2016 Reports from the floor about the permanence of the DNC Walkout remained conflicting as the night wore on. Some maintained that the delegates retook their seats, while others said that the chairs remained empty into nighttime programming: @AbbyMartin @edatpost All of those seats have been filled if you are watching the live shots 11pm EST. - Bidupedo (@bidupedo) July 27, 2016 Josh Fox, the filmmaker depicted in the above video, surmised that not all walkouts were solely in protest: 'I think some ppl left in protest but I think most ppl left bc they were demoralized,' Sanders backer @joshfoxfilm says #DNCinPHL - Rosa Goldensohn (@RosaGoldensohn) July 27, 2016 As the events played out, members of the press reported a chaotic scene with scattered accounts of rescinded access: Hey @DemConvention, media's still being denied access to general areas. A Homeland Security agent was even denied. Please sort out the mess. - Joey Parker (@JoeyABC17) July 27, 2016 Not long after, Woodley tweeted out a screenshot of a purported text message seeking delegates to fill empty seats in the California delegation's section. The authenticity of the text wasn't confirmed: this was sent 2 delegates 2 fill in seats so it didn't look so empty.amazing how easy it is 2 breed false narratives pic.twitter.com/YANWlOWLxN - Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) July 27, 2016 As of 27 July 2016, numerous sources stated that delegates who left in the DNC Walkout did not return, but it was not clear how many, and whether any planned to return.

nan

A photograph shows Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel, a real-life person who served as the inspiration for the character 'Popeye.

Neutral

The internet's interest is periodically piqued by a photograph supposedly showing Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel, the man believed to be cartoonist E.C. Segar's inspiration for the character of 'Popeye': The claim that Fiegel was the inspiration for 'Popeye' is largely accurate. However, the picture shown above is not a photograph of him. Fred Grandinetti explored the origins of the character in his book Popeye: An Illustrated Cultural History. He found that the locals of Chester, Ill., where creator Segar was raised in the early 1900s, likely served as an inspiration to Segar. The characterization of Popeye, for example, can be found in the look and personality of Fiegel, who had a strong chin, always smoked a pipe, and had a propensity for fights, according to Grandinetti: The lore of Chester, Illinois, holds that the character of Popeye was inspired by town resident Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel. Lee Huffstutler, herself a Chester local, makes and well supports this argument. According to Huffstutler, Rocky Fiegel was of Polish descent and lived with his mother in a house near the Evergreen Cemetery. Mrs. Huffstutler describes him as 'tall, strong, always ready for a fight and always a winner' ... Rocky worked part-time at George Gozney's saloon. When he finished his work and had consumed a couple of beers, he would take a chair outside, seat himself, tilt the chair back, and, with pipe in his mouth, proceed to take a nap in the sunshine. Of course, the sleeping Rocky became an amusing target for the school children who came by. They would creep near, yell loudly, and run. Rocky would awaken with a start and jump out of his chair, arms flailing, ready for a fight. but alas, there would be no opponent. The children would be a block away by that time. In the March 28, 1947, issue of the Chester Herald Tribune, there is an obituary for Mr. Fiegel, who died at his home in Chester on March 24, 1947. Born January 27, 1868, he was 79 years of age at the time of his death. The editor wrote that Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel was a familiar character in Chester and was credited for being the inspiration of Elsie Segar's 'Popeye.' The article reads: 'In his younger days he performed amazing feats of strength. Because of his hardened physique he was affectionately known as 'Rocky.' His angular jaw and familiar corn-cob pipe apparently impressed the young Segar. Some versions of this claim also state that Fiegel, like Popeye, was a sailor, but that wasn't the case. Furthermore, Fiegel wasn't aware of his role in the creation of Popeye until the final years of his life, according to the Southern Illinoisan: In Chester, it is commonly accepted that Fiegel provided Segar with the basis for the character of Popeye. Although not a sailor, and more inclined to guzzle liquor than spinach, Fiegel had the reputation of being as tough and as fearless as the cartoon character ... Fiegel, a bartender and general laborer around Chester, seldom had steady work and was often seen loafing around the town's saloons ... It wasn't until 1938, nine years before he died, that he learned that he was the inspiration for Popeye. That was the year the strip's creator, Segar, died. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a picture of Fiegel sitting in a rocking chair and smoking a pipe, saying he was the inspiration for the character. While Fiegel likely inspired Segar's Popeye character, the viral photograph frequently attached to this claim doesn't actually show him. The image is one of an anonymous sailor aboard the HMS Rodney in 1940. The image is available via the Imperial War Museum where it is presented with the caption: 'A Leading Stoker nicknamed 'Popeye', with 21 years service': Fiegel was in his 70s at the time this photograph was taken. Furthermore, HMS Rodney was a British battleship in service of the Royal Navy, far from Fiegel's home in Chester. A genuine photograph of the 'real life Popeye' can be seen in a 1979 article published in the Carbondale, Ill., newspaper Southern Illinoisan about Chester's famous resident (see top right image): Sun, Apr 8, 1979 - Page 33 · Southern Illinoisan (Carbondale, Illinois) · Newspapers.com Here's a larger version of that image: Fiegel passed away in 1947 and was buried in an unmarked grave. According to the Official Popeye Fan Club, this was remedied in 1996 when a headstone bearing a 1929 version of Popeye was placed at Fiegel's final resting place: On September 7, 1996, Fiegel's formerly unmarked grave was finally marked with a headstone. The marker was inscripted with the 1929 version of E.C. Segar's Popeye character. This version of Popeye most resembles his legendary 'real life' counterpart.

nan

A photograph shows Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel, a real-life person who served as the inspiration for the character 'Popeye.

Neutral

The internet's interest is periodically piqued by a photograph supposedly showing Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel, the man believed to be cartoonist E.C. Segar's inspiration for the character of 'Popeye': The claim that Fiegel was the inspiration for 'Popeye' is largely accurate. However, the picture shown above is not a photograph of him. Fred Grandinetti explored the origins of the character in his book Popeye: An Illustrated Cultural History. He found that the locals of Chester, Ill., where creator Segar was raised in the early 1900s, likely served as an inspiration to Segar. The characterization of Popeye, for example, can be found in the look and personality of Fiegel, who had a strong chin, always smoked a pipe, and had a propensity for fights, according to Grandinetti: The lore of Chester, Illinois, holds that the character of Popeye was inspired by town resident Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel. Lee Huffstutler, herself a Chester local, makes and well supports this argument. According to Huffstutler, Rocky Fiegel was of Polish descent and lived with his mother in a house near the Evergreen Cemetery. Mrs. Huffstutler describes him as 'tall, strong, always ready for a fight and always a winner' ... Rocky worked part-time at George Gozney's saloon. When he finished his work and had consumed a couple of beers, he would take a chair outside, seat himself, tilt the chair back, and, with pipe in his mouth, proceed to take a nap in the sunshine. Of course, the sleeping Rocky became an amusing target for the school children who came by. They would creep near, yell loudly, and run. Rocky would awaken with a start and jump out of his chair, arms flailing, ready for a fight. but alas, there would be no opponent. The children would be a block away by that time. In the March 28, 1947, issue of the Chester Herald Tribune, there is an obituary for Mr. Fiegel, who died at his home in Chester on March 24, 1947. Born January 27, 1868, he was 79 years of age at the time of his death. The editor wrote that Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel was a familiar character in Chester and was credited for being the inspiration of Elsie Segar's 'Popeye.' The article reads: 'In his younger days he performed amazing feats of strength. Because of his hardened physique he was affectionately known as 'Rocky.' His angular jaw and familiar corn-cob pipe apparently impressed the young Segar. Some versions of this claim also state that Fiegel, like Popeye, was a sailor, but that wasn't the case. Furthermore, Fiegel wasn't aware of his role in the creation of Popeye until the final years of his life, according to the Southern Illinoisan: In Chester, it is commonly accepted that Fiegel provided Segar with the basis for the character of Popeye. Although not a sailor, and more inclined to guzzle liquor than spinach, Fiegel had the reputation of being as tough and as fearless as the cartoon character ... Fiegel, a bartender and general laborer around Chester, seldom had steady work and was often seen loafing around the town's saloons ... It wasn't until 1938, nine years before he died, that he learned that he was the inspiration for Popeye. That was the year the strip's creator, Segar, died. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a picture of Fiegel sitting in a rocking chair and smoking a pipe, saying he was the inspiration for the character. While Fiegel likely inspired Segar's Popeye character, the viral photograph frequently attached to this claim doesn't actually show him. The image is one of an anonymous sailor aboard the HMS Rodney in 1940. The image is available via the Imperial War Museum where it is presented with the caption: 'A Leading Stoker nicknamed 'Popeye', with 21 years service': Fiegel was in his 70s at the time this photograph was taken. Furthermore, HMS Rodney was a British battleship in service of the Royal Navy, far from Fiegel's home in Chester. A genuine photograph of the 'real life Popeye' can be seen in a 1979 article published in the Carbondale, Ill., newspaper Southern Illinoisan about Chester's famous resident (see top right image): Sun, Apr 8, 1979 - Page 33 · Southern Illinoisan (Carbondale, Illinois) · Newspapers.com Here's a larger version of that image: Fiegel passed away in 1947 and was buried in an unmarked grave. According to the Official Popeye Fan Club, this was remedied in 1996 when a headstone bearing a 1929 version of Popeye was placed at Fiegel's final resting place: On September 7, 1996, Fiegel's formerly unmarked grave was finally marked with a headstone. The marker was inscripted with the 1929 version of E.C. Segar's Popeye character. This version of Popeye most resembles his legendary 'real life' counterpart.

nan

A photograph shows Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel, a real-life person who served as the inspiration for the character 'Popeye.

Neutral

The internet's interest is periodically piqued by a photograph supposedly showing Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel, the man believed to be cartoonist E.C. Segar's inspiration for the character of 'Popeye': The claim that Fiegel was the inspiration for 'Popeye' is largely accurate. However, the picture shown above is not a photograph of him. Fred Grandinetti explored the origins of the character in his book Popeye: An Illustrated Cultural History. He found that the locals of Chester, Ill., where creator Segar was raised in the early 1900s, likely served as an inspiration to Segar. The characterization of Popeye, for example, can be found in the look and personality of Fiegel, who had a strong chin, always smoked a pipe, and had a propensity for fights, according to Grandinetti: The lore of Chester, Illinois, holds that the character of Popeye was inspired by town resident Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel. Lee Huffstutler, herself a Chester local, makes and well supports this argument. According to Huffstutler, Rocky Fiegel was of Polish descent and lived with his mother in a house near the Evergreen Cemetery. Mrs. Huffstutler describes him as 'tall, strong, always ready for a fight and always a winner' ... Rocky worked part-time at George Gozney's saloon. When he finished his work and had consumed a couple of beers, he would take a chair outside, seat himself, tilt the chair back, and, with pipe in his mouth, proceed to take a nap in the sunshine. Of course, the sleeping Rocky became an amusing target for the school children who came by. They would creep near, yell loudly, and run. Rocky would awaken with a start and jump out of his chair, arms flailing, ready for a fight. but alas, there would be no opponent. The children would be a block away by that time. In the March 28, 1947, issue of the Chester Herald Tribune, there is an obituary for Mr. Fiegel, who died at his home in Chester on March 24, 1947. Born January 27, 1868, he was 79 years of age at the time of his death. The editor wrote that Frank 'Rocky' Fiegel was a familiar character in Chester and was credited for being the inspiration of Elsie Segar's 'Popeye.' The article reads: 'In his younger days he performed amazing feats of strength. Because of his hardened physique he was affectionately known as 'Rocky.' His angular jaw and familiar corn-cob pipe apparently impressed the young Segar. Some versions of this claim also state that Fiegel, like Popeye, was a sailor, but that wasn't the case. Furthermore, Fiegel wasn't aware of his role in the creation of Popeye until the final years of his life, according to the Southern Illinoisan: In Chester, it is commonly accepted that Fiegel provided Segar with the basis for the character of Popeye. Although not a sailor, and more inclined to guzzle liquor than spinach, Fiegel had the reputation of being as tough and as fearless as the cartoon character ... Fiegel, a bartender and general laborer around Chester, seldom had steady work and was often seen loafing around the town's saloons ... It wasn't until 1938, nine years before he died, that he learned that he was the inspiration for Popeye. That was the year the strip's creator, Segar, died. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a picture of Fiegel sitting in a rocking chair and smoking a pipe, saying he was the inspiration for the character. While Fiegel likely inspired Segar's Popeye character, the viral photograph frequently attached to this claim doesn't actually show him. The image is one of an anonymous sailor aboard the HMS Rodney in 1940. The image is available via the Imperial War Museum where it is presented with the caption: 'A Leading Stoker nicknamed 'Popeye', with 21 years service': Fiegel was in his 70s at the time this photograph was taken. Furthermore, HMS Rodney was a British battleship in service of the Royal Navy, far from Fiegel's home in Chester. A genuine photograph of the 'real life Popeye' can be seen in a 1979 article published in the Carbondale, Ill., newspaper Southern Illinoisan about Chester's famous resident (see top right image): Sun, Apr 8, 1979 - Page 33 · Southern Illinoisan (Carbondale, Illinois) · Newspapers.com Here's a larger version of that image: Fiegel passed away in 1947 and was buried in an unmarked grave. According to the Official Popeye Fan Club, this was remedied in 1996 when a headstone bearing a 1929 version of Popeye was placed at Fiegel's final resting place: On September 7, 1996, Fiegel's formerly unmarked grave was finally marked with a headstone. The marker was inscripted with the 1929 version of E.C. Segar's Popeye character. This version of Popeye most resembles his legendary 'real life' counterpart.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.

Neutral

A 2015 Tumblr post arguing that after the Civil War, Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee disassociated himself from his cause received renewed attention amid a national controversy about the preservation of Confederate statues and monuments in August 2017: The original post read: Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy's defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call 'the confederate flag') never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason. So there's your 'southern heritage.' On 5 August 2017, a second Tumblr user, girly-friday, expanded the claim to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis and added citations: Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. Basically, 'Get the fuck over it.' We lost, we're a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. However, Judith Giesberg - a history professor at Villanova University and the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era - questioned the citations made in the post, telling us, 'I would not read those documents that way at all.' Giesberg and two other experts we contacted took issue with several of revelation19 and girly-friday's claims, which we have broken down below: Robert E. Lee refused to wear his Confederate uniform after the war and was not buried in it: TRUE One of the citations girly-friday linked to was the statement Lee reportedly made when declining an invitation from the Gettysburg Identification Meeting committee, which was quoted in The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911: I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. Barton A. Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington & Lee College - the university where Lee served as president from 1865 until his death in 1870 - agreed that Lee 'definitely discouraged' the commemoration of Civil War battle sites such as Gettysburg. 'He really did believe that those were public events and public commemorations that might cause additional animosity between the North and the South,' Myers said, adding that Lee was also facing federal treason charges after being indicted by a grand jury. He was never formally tried by a jury, but U.S. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at one point threatened to resign his commission if Lee was ever arrested. Not only did Lee not wear his uniform in public, Myers said, but the post is correct in stating that he was not buried in it. His U.S. citizenship was not restored until 22 July 1975 by then-President Gerald Ford. Mourners at Lee's funeral were barred from wearing their own Confederate uniforms: UNPROVEN A photograph credited to the American Civil War Museum reportedly shows mourners attending Lee's funeral on 15 October 1870 in their Confederate uniforms. But Historian and author Kevin Levin told us in a phone interview that he 'would be shocked' if that were the case: One thing to keep in mind is that during Reconstruction in Virginia, ex-Confederates were prevented from wearing their uniforms. They weren't allowed to do so. Even wearing buttons from their uniforms was deemed illegal. Giesberg said: There is this effort on the part of occupying federal troops to outlaw these sort of flagrant displays of continued loyalty to the Confederacy. We also know that in some cases, men are being arrested for wearing their uniforms, that they're doing tricky things like cutting off the buttons but still wearing them. It's all sort of a theater of resistance. We contacted the museum seeking more information about the photograph, but have yet to receive a response. Lee called the Confederate battle flag 'a flag of treason': FALSE Levin refuted this claim from the post, while saying that - despite urging both sides to 'move on' in public - Lee hid many of his own feelings following the war: Privately, he is still upset about emancipation, the end of slavery; he is upset about African-Americans possibly getting the right to vote. Those are thoughts that he shares with a few people. He's not writing about it, but by the end of his life in 1869 he had been planning to write an autobiography. He had started collecting material for it but he died too soon. That is part of what makes Lee so attractive to people who want to defend the Confederacy. You can turn him into whatever you want to. He doesn't bare his soul after the war. Lee's testimony before the Joint Committeee on Reconstruction on 17 February 1866, also left it unclear whether he disavowed his Confederate service, since he was never asked that directly. Jefferson Davis 'felt the same way' as Lee and disavowed his Confederate service: FALSE In arguing that Davis had renounced his ties to the Confederacy, girly-friday cited a quote from his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1: My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used. That statement, Giesberg said, gave her 'pause': The rest of that [book] is about defending that war as a noble war and defending all of those of his generation who participated in it. I would not want to interpret that quote there without putting it in its full context. Similarly, Levin said that Davis was likely speaking 'metaphorically,' since the Confederate battle flag had not gained acceptance as a public symbol at the time he published the book: The battle flag was for the most part displayed in a very limited way, almost always by Confederate veterans, at veterans' reunions. Many of these guys in their older years are living in what were called 'soldiers' homes.' So for special events at these places, they would bring out flags. But they were usually the original flags. They were not the imported kind from China. Don't think of the context of this as, 'There is some big debate regarding the Confederate flag.' That debate happens much later. It's not until like the 1930s and 40s that it becomes a popular cultural symbol. Davis's book gave a revisionist history of the Confederate states' rational for seceding from the Union, said Levin: One thing ex-Confederates understand after the war is, they may have lost the war but who writes the history and who tells the stories? There's a potential victory in that. They don't want the Northerners to write the history and paint them as the villains. What historians call the 'Lost Cause' is all about saving face. It's all about announcing to the world that 'We lost militarily but we remain justified. We are still God's chosen people.' Levin added that Davis had rebranded himself as a 'symbol of what was lost.' Besides repositioning its cause as a 'states' rights' issue Davis mounted a popular tour of the South after the war alongside his daughter Varina Anne Davis, who became known as the 'daughter of the Confederacy' - a much more visible position than Lee. Levin said: Davis and Lee, they did not see eye-to-eye on how to move forward. Davis did not want to give up the cause, even though he's revising the cause for which they fought - it's no longer about slavery, it's about 'states' rights' - he wants this memory of the Confederacy to live on. He's a bit more defiant than Lee ever could have been. Giesberg noted that Davis' book was 'one of the earliest so-called 'official histories of the Confederacy'' to attempt to redefine Southern grievances, and pointed to a similar shift in rhetoric from his vice-president Alexander Stephens, who went from calling slavery a 'cornerstone' in 1861 to saying seven years later that the Confederate states had fought against 'the Demon of Centralism, Absolutism, and Despotism.' Myers also drew a link between Lee's public reputation and Davis' ability to recast himself after the war: Part of the reason that Davis could participate in the cult of the 'Lost Cause' myth was that he was still alive. Much of the intellectual architecture of the myth is created in the years following Lee's death in October of 1870. Many speeches from former generals like Jubal Early and William Nelson Pendleton contributed to the foundation of that myth, and those come in the wake of his death. People move from admiring Robert E. Lee in the South to seeing him as a virtually infallible figure during the decades after his demise.

nan

Mike Pence's parents operated a chain of 'whites only' gas stations.

Neutral

In October 2016, a photograph purportedly showing current Indiana governor and Republican vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence standing in front of a 'whites only' gas station owned by his parents began circulating online: This image does not show Mike Pence, nor does it depict a 'whites only' gas station run by Pence's family in Indiana. This picture was taken in South Carolina circa 1950 (Pence himself wasn't born until 1959) and has nothing to do with the Pences. Although the photograph is unrelated to the Pence family, it is true that the Indiana governor's father did have a hand in running a string of gas stations. Several news outlets, including ABC, Indinapolis Star, and CNN have mentioned this fact since Mike Pence was chosen to be Donald Trump's running mate in July 2016. None of these sources reported that the gas stations run by Pence's father, Edward Pence, were 'whites only,' however. According to a September 2016 Forbes article, Edward Pence did not own the gas stations himself; rather, he worked for the Kiel Brothers Oil Company: Kiel Brothers Oil Company and a related C corporation KP Oil Inc ran over 200 convenience store gas stations in Indiana and surrounding states. Edward Pence, Mike's father had spent his career there and Gregory Pence, Mike's brother, was CEO towards the end. It was a family business, but not really a Pence family business. The original Kiels were still around.

nan

Freelance reporter Hal Lundgren wrote a letter to Lebron James criticizing the NBA star for comments he made about President Trump.

Neutral

In September 2017, NBA star Lebron James (now with the Los Angeles Lakers) called President Donald Trump a 'bum' on Twitter in response to Trump's withdrawing an invitation for recent NBA champion Steph Curry to visit the White House: U bum @StephenCurry30 already said he ain't going! So therefore ain't no invite. Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up! - LeBron James (@KingJames) September 23, 2017 James' message, which ended up being one of the most retweeted posts of the year, drew criticism from many of President Trump's supporters, and in November 2018, nearly a year after the social media exchange, an open letter supposedly written by freelance reporter Hal Lundgren criticizing Lebron James for his comment was widely circulated on social media. A portion of that open letter is reproduced below: August 6, 2018 Mr. Lebron James The Los Angeles Lakers 2275 E. Mariposa Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. James, No one in my circles discusses French Modernist artists. That comforts me. Such a conversation would expose me as an illiterate on French Modernism, just as I am an illiterate on how to cook. When I know nothing of subjects, my mouth stays closed. That's at least one difference in us. You are an economics illiterate. You prove it often. The dishonest 'reporters' who cover you want to be your buddy. They won't embarrass you by being honest journalists and treating your words as economics illiteracy. When you call Trump 'a bum,' none of them will tell you that statistics rank him as one of our best presidents for black Americans. His tax cuts and freeing us from absurd regulations have resulted in - after only 18 months - the lowest unemployment numbers ever for Hispanic and black Americans, and one of the lowest numbers for women. DURING THOSE 18 MONTHS, TRUMP'S POLICIES CREATED ABOUT FOUR TIMES OF THE MANUFACTURING JOBS CREATED DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S LAST 18 MONTHS. Remember when Obama mistakenly told us 'Our lost manufacturing jobs are not coming back.' Maybe manufacturing job growth depends on a president who knows what he's doing. As a professional journalist, I cringe at some of Trump's buffoonery, like repeating sentences and wearing us out with 'great,' 'fantastic' and other empty adjectives. He is often coarse. He was not my candidate. But there's no question his policies have helped many more minority Americans than Obama. It's not even close. Today, he's working to free many black and Hispanic prisoners who, in his opinion, have been in prison too long for relatively minor offenses. Are you aware of that effort? [...] Or, you could ignore vital Trump decisions and remain an illiterate on both presidential achievement and economics. If you disdain knowledge and keep calling Trump or any other U.S. president a bum, people will begin to wonder who's the real bum. Sincerely, Hal Lundgren Hal Lundgren is a freelance reporter whose work has been published in outlets such as the Houston Chronicle. However, we could not find a copy of this letter in the digital pages of the newspaper's web site (Chron.com) not in the archives of other online publications in which Lundgren's work has appeared (such as LMT Online). The earliest version of this letter we uncovered was published in September 2018 in the 'Doug's Rants' section of the Santa Clarita Gazette, but that version was not attributed to Hal Lundgren. Doug Sutton, who manages the 'Doug's Rants' section of the paper, introduced an abbreviated version of the letter and stated it was written by an unnamed third party: Ranter's Note: The following is a letter sent to me that was written to Lebron James by a third party; James has been a harsh critic of President Trump. Due to space limitations, this is an abbreviated version of the letter. We've attempted to contact Hal Lundgren to find out if he truly authored this missive but haven't been successful in eliciting a response so far. What we can say is that we didn't find this letter at Chron.com, where Lundgren publishes his work, and we have not found Lundgren's byline attached to the letter in any other credible publication. Furthermore, it appears that this letter was attributed to a nameless 'third party' before Lundgren's name was tacked on to the bottom of the text.

nan

Freelance reporter Hal Lundgren wrote a letter to Lebron James criticizing the NBA star for comments he made about President Trump.

Neutral

In September 2017, NBA star Lebron James (now with the Los Angeles Lakers) called President Donald Trump a 'bum' on Twitter in response to Trump's withdrawing an invitation for recent NBA champion Steph Curry to visit the White House: U bum @StephenCurry30 already said he ain't going! So therefore ain't no invite. Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up! - LeBron James (@KingJames) September 23, 2017 James' message, which ended up being one of the most retweeted posts of the year, drew criticism from many of President Trump's supporters, and in November 2018, nearly a year after the social media exchange, an open letter supposedly written by freelance reporter Hal Lundgren criticizing Lebron James for his comment was widely circulated on social media. A portion of that open letter is reproduced below: August 6, 2018 Mr. Lebron James The Los Angeles Lakers 2275 E. Mariposa Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. James, No one in my circles discusses French Modernist artists. That comforts me. Such a conversation would expose me as an illiterate on French Modernism, just as I am an illiterate on how to cook. When I know nothing of subjects, my mouth stays closed. That's at least one difference in us. You are an economics illiterate. You prove it often. The dishonest 'reporters' who cover you want to be your buddy. They won't embarrass you by being honest journalists and treating your words as economics illiteracy. When you call Trump 'a bum,' none of them will tell you that statistics rank him as one of our best presidents for black Americans. His tax cuts and freeing us from absurd regulations have resulted in - after only 18 months - the lowest unemployment numbers ever for Hispanic and black Americans, and one of the lowest numbers for women. DURING THOSE 18 MONTHS, TRUMP'S POLICIES CREATED ABOUT FOUR TIMES OF THE MANUFACTURING JOBS CREATED DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S LAST 18 MONTHS. Remember when Obama mistakenly told us 'Our lost manufacturing jobs are not coming back.' Maybe manufacturing job growth depends on a president who knows what he's doing. As a professional journalist, I cringe at some of Trump's buffoonery, like repeating sentences and wearing us out with 'great,' 'fantastic' and other empty adjectives. He is often coarse. He was not my candidate. But there's no question his policies have helped many more minority Americans than Obama. It's not even close. Today, he's working to free many black and Hispanic prisoners who, in his opinion, have been in prison too long for relatively minor offenses. Are you aware of that effort? [...] Or, you could ignore vital Trump decisions and remain an illiterate on both presidential achievement and economics. If you disdain knowledge and keep calling Trump or any other U.S. president a bum, people will begin to wonder who's the real bum. Sincerely, Hal Lundgren Hal Lundgren is a freelance reporter whose work has been published in outlets such as the Houston Chronicle. However, we could not find a copy of this letter in the digital pages of the newspaper's web site (Chron.com) not in the archives of other online publications in which Lundgren's work has appeared (such as LMT Online). The earliest version of this letter we uncovered was published in September 2018 in the 'Doug's Rants' section of the Santa Clarita Gazette, but that version was not attributed to Hal Lundgren. Doug Sutton, who manages the 'Doug's Rants' section of the paper, introduced an abbreviated version of the letter and stated it was written by an unnamed third party: Ranter's Note: The following is a letter sent to me that was written to Lebron James by a third party; James has been a harsh critic of President Trump. Due to space limitations, this is an abbreviated version of the letter. We've attempted to contact Hal Lundgren to find out if he truly authored this missive but haven't been successful in eliciting a response so far. What we can say is that we didn't find this letter at Chron.com, where Lundgren publishes his work, and we have not found Lundgren's byline attached to the letter in any other credible publication. Furthermore, it appears that this letter was attributed to a nameless 'third party' before Lundgren's name was tacked on to the bottom of the text.

nan

Freelance reporter Hal Lundgren wrote a letter to Lebron James criticizing the NBA star for comments he made about President Trump.

Neutral

In September 2017, NBA star Lebron James (now with the Los Angeles Lakers) called President Donald Trump a 'bum' on Twitter in response to Trump's withdrawing an invitation for recent NBA champion Steph Curry to visit the White House: U bum @StephenCurry30 already said he ain't going! So therefore ain't no invite. Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up! - LeBron James (@KingJames) September 23, 2017 James' message, which ended up being one of the most retweeted posts of the year, drew criticism from many of President Trump's supporters, and in November 2018, nearly a year after the social media exchange, an open letter supposedly written by freelance reporter Hal Lundgren criticizing Lebron James for his comment was widely circulated on social media. A portion of that open letter is reproduced below: August 6, 2018 Mr. Lebron James The Los Angeles Lakers 2275 E. Mariposa Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. James, No one in my circles discusses French Modernist artists. That comforts me. Such a conversation would expose me as an illiterate on French Modernism, just as I am an illiterate on how to cook. When I know nothing of subjects, my mouth stays closed. That's at least one difference in us. You are an economics illiterate. You prove it often. The dishonest 'reporters' who cover you want to be your buddy. They won't embarrass you by being honest journalists and treating your words as economics illiteracy. When you call Trump 'a bum,' none of them will tell you that statistics rank him as one of our best presidents for black Americans. His tax cuts and freeing us from absurd regulations have resulted in - after only 18 months - the lowest unemployment numbers ever for Hispanic and black Americans, and one of the lowest numbers for women. DURING THOSE 18 MONTHS, TRUMP'S POLICIES CREATED ABOUT FOUR TIMES OF THE MANUFACTURING JOBS CREATED DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S LAST 18 MONTHS. Remember when Obama mistakenly told us 'Our lost manufacturing jobs are not coming back.' Maybe manufacturing job growth depends on a president who knows what he's doing. As a professional journalist, I cringe at some of Trump's buffoonery, like repeating sentences and wearing us out with 'great,' 'fantastic' and other empty adjectives. He is often coarse. He was not my candidate. But there's no question his policies have helped many more minority Americans than Obama. It's not even close. Today, he's working to free many black and Hispanic prisoners who, in his opinion, have been in prison too long for relatively minor offenses. Are you aware of that effort? [...] Or, you could ignore vital Trump decisions and remain an illiterate on both presidential achievement and economics. If you disdain knowledge and keep calling Trump or any other U.S. president a bum, people will begin to wonder who's the real bum. Sincerely, Hal Lundgren Hal Lundgren is a freelance reporter whose work has been published in outlets such as the Houston Chronicle. However, we could not find a copy of this letter in the digital pages of the newspaper's web site (Chron.com) not in the archives of other online publications in which Lundgren's work has appeared (such as LMT Online). The earliest version of this letter we uncovered was published in September 2018 in the 'Doug's Rants' section of the Santa Clarita Gazette, but that version was not attributed to Hal Lundgren. Doug Sutton, who manages the 'Doug's Rants' section of the paper, introduced an abbreviated version of the letter and stated it was written by an unnamed third party: Ranter's Note: The following is a letter sent to me that was written to Lebron James by a third party; James has been a harsh critic of President Trump. Due to space limitations, this is an abbreviated version of the letter. We've attempted to contact Hal Lundgren to find out if he truly authored this missive but haven't been successful in eliciting a response so far. What we can say is that we didn't find this letter at Chron.com, where Lundgren publishes his work, and we have not found Lundgren's byline attached to the letter in any other credible publication. Furthermore, it appears that this letter was attributed to a nameless 'third party' before Lundgren's name was tacked on to the bottom of the text.

nan

Bill Clinton fathered an illegitimate, mixed-race son named Danney Williams with an Arkansas prostitute in 1985.

Neutral

On 3 October 2016, five weeks before the U.S. presidential election, a decades-old tabloid story revealing the supposed existence of a 'love child' fathered by former president Bill Clinton in 1985 was resurrected by the Daily Mail, a London tabloid. Adorning the article were side-by-side photos comparing the facial features of Clinton and a 30-year-old mixed-race man named Danney Williams (or 'Danney Williams-Clinton,' as he prefers to call himself on Facebook), who claims that he is that love child and all he wants to do is meet his real dad - but he may never get a chance to, because Bill Clinton's wife Hillary, who is also (far from coincidentally) the current Democratic contender for the presidency, has 'banished' him. The Drudge Report pushed the story stateside, hyperlinking from its landing page to the Daily Mail article, Danney Williams' Twitter and Facebook pages, and a video by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones: 'Hillary Had Bill's Mixed Race Son Banished.' Behind the Bushes The story first grabbed international headlines when Bill Clinton was preparing to run for president in 1992, the Mail reported: The Globe interviewed Danney's mother, a former prostitute named Bobbie Ann Williams, who told the story of how she allegedly met and began a relationship with Clinton in 1984. She says Clinton went out for a run one day in Little Rock, when he jogged by her housing project and introduced himself to her. She was 24 years old at the time. A few days later, Clinton allegedly jogged by the housing project again and paid Bobbie $200 for her to have sex with him behind some bushes. After that, Bobbie says that she and Clinton regularly had sex, sometimes alone, sometimes with other female partners. When she found herself pregnant in 1985, Bobbie Ann Williams suspected from the beginning that it was Clinton's child, the story continues. She informed Clinton of the pregnancy, she said, but he laughed and said it couldn't be his. She became convinced beyond all doubt that Clinton was the father after the child was born on Dec. 7, 1985, because Danney had light skin, Williams told The Globe. She said Clinton was her only white client when she became pregnant. Williams is African American. Paternity Test: Negative Despite failing to attract mainstream media attention in its first outing, the Clinton love child melodrama was revisited in the late '90s by the conservative web site Newsmax, whose dogged coverage (amid claims of being strong-armed by Clinton operatives) led to the commissioning of a DNA paternity test by another weekly tabloid, Star magazine. Drudge Report picked up the story at this point, claiming the revelations had 'rocked the White House' and would lead to a 'paternity showdown.' But no showdown occurred. Contrary to expectations, the paternity test determined that Bill Clinton was not Danney Williams' father, Time magazine reported on 18 July 1999: Using the Starr Report's FBI analysis of Clinton's DNA as its reference, Star paid former prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams, the source for the Globe article, and her 13-year-old son for their story and blood samples. And the result: 'There was no match. Not even close,' says a Star source. (The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity.) But if the tabloid was disappointed by the results, it's putting up a good, Brill's Content-ready front. Says editor in chief Phil Bunton: 'We investigate dozens of stories every week, and if they don't prove to be true, we don't run them.' Ironically, given how enthusiastically they participated in reviving the story in 2016, it was the Drudge Report that hammered the final nail in its coffin: 'The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity,' TIME magazine reported. The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that 13-year old Danny Williams is now dealing with the news that Bill Clinton is not his father. 'Danny is holding up fine ... doing quite well,' a source close to the situation in Arkansas explained on Saturday. 'For him, this was always just a search for the truth,' the source added. In what now must be viewed as a cruel hoax by the boy's mother - Bobbie Ann Williams even gave a paid interview to PARAMOUNT's HARD COPY detailing her 'relationship' with Bill Clinton - the story of sex for money that ended in pregnancy itself, in the end, was debunked and flunked by science. That was not the last the world would hear of the story, however. On 17 June 2018, the same day Danney Williams tweeted a bittersweet Father's Day greeting to Bill Clinton, Haitian-American entrepreneur Carl Bavensky Paul offered a $20,000 donation to Donald Trump's next political campaign if the president would use his power to get Clinton to agree to a paternity test: Mr. President Can you use your presidential power to get @BillClinton to Do a DNA for this kid @danney_williams cause im curious about the result so does everyone else... I'm willing to pay for the test including a $20k donation on your next Campaign. Thank you Mr. @POTUS - Carl Barvensky Paul (@c_barvensky) June 17, 2018 Remainder of Doubt In fairness, there were a couple of issues with the reliability of the original paternity test. One was its origin: the tabloids. Despite running with the story, Time's only source for the Clinton paternity results was Star magazine (indeed, The Clintons' War on Women co-author and former Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone claims there is no evidence the test was ever conducted). The other was a 1999 piece published in Slate arguing that because it was based on the limited analysis provided in the Starr Report and not a new DNA sample, the test results were inconclusive: The FBI performed two genetic fingerprinting tests on the president's DNA. The Starr report, for unexplained reasons, gives data only for the less specific of the two tests. In fact, this test is imprecise enough that it would probably not be persuasive to a judge. Dr. George Riley of Genelex-a well-regarded forensic DNA lab-calculates that the genetic fingerprint given in the Starr report will most likely yield a so-called 'paternity index' of only 20 to 30. In other words, a positive test would mean that President Clinton is only 20 to 30 times more likely than a random Caucasian male to be Danny Williams' father. This would be suggestive but not conclusive. (50,000 white men in Arkansas would get the same test results.) The legal threshold is 100. At best the genetic fingerprint contained in the Starr report can only yield a paternity index of 120. The actual value depends on the mother's DNA. So, what's the evidence before us? 1. We have the sudden revisiting, in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, of a 1992 tabloid story claiming Bill Clinton had an illegitimate son by a prostitute - a story that all but disappeared in 1999 after it was reported that DNA testing failed to establish that Clinton was the father. 2. We have two social media accounts in Danney Williams' name, neither more than a year old, describing him as 'the son of the 42nd President of the United States - Bill Clinton.' 3. We have a plethora of head shots purporting to show a family resemblance between Clinton and Williams. 4. We have a frenetic, 11th-hour effort by partisan web sites - including Drudge Report, which in 1999 concluded that it had been 'debunked and flunked by science' - to peddle the Clinton love child narrative to voters. Our verdict: Unproven.Recent Updates Updated [19 June 2018]: Added report of a renewed effort to conduct a second DNA test to establish Bill Clinton's paternity.

nan

Bill Clinton fathered an illegitimate, mixed-race son named Danney Williams with an Arkansas prostitute in 1985.

Neutral

On 3 October 2016, five weeks before the U.S. presidential election, a decades-old tabloid story revealing the supposed existence of a 'love child' fathered by former president Bill Clinton in 1985 was resurrected by the Daily Mail, a London tabloid. Adorning the article were side-by-side photos comparing the facial features of Clinton and a 30-year-old mixed-race man named Danney Williams (or 'Danney Williams-Clinton,' as he prefers to call himself on Facebook), who claims that he is that love child and all he wants to do is meet his real dad - but he may never get a chance to, because Bill Clinton's wife Hillary, who is also (far from coincidentally) the current Democratic contender for the presidency, has 'banished' him. The Drudge Report pushed the story stateside, hyperlinking from its landing page to the Daily Mail article, Danney Williams' Twitter and Facebook pages, and a video by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones: 'Hillary Had Bill's Mixed Race Son Banished.' Behind the Bushes The story first grabbed international headlines when Bill Clinton was preparing to run for president in 1992, the Mail reported: The Globe interviewed Danney's mother, a former prostitute named Bobbie Ann Williams, who told the story of how she allegedly met and began a relationship with Clinton in 1984. She says Clinton went out for a run one day in Little Rock, when he jogged by her housing project and introduced himself to her. She was 24 years old at the time. A few days later, Clinton allegedly jogged by the housing project again and paid Bobbie $200 for her to have sex with him behind some bushes. After that, Bobbie says that she and Clinton regularly had sex, sometimes alone, sometimes with other female partners. When she found herself pregnant in 1985, Bobbie Ann Williams suspected from the beginning that it was Clinton's child, the story continues. She informed Clinton of the pregnancy, she said, but he laughed and said it couldn't be his. She became convinced beyond all doubt that Clinton was the father after the child was born on Dec. 7, 1985, because Danney had light skin, Williams told The Globe. She said Clinton was her only white client when she became pregnant. Williams is African American. Paternity Test: Negative Despite failing to attract mainstream media attention in its first outing, the Clinton love child melodrama was revisited in the late '90s by the conservative web site Newsmax, whose dogged coverage (amid claims of being strong-armed by Clinton operatives) led to the commissioning of a DNA paternity test by another weekly tabloid, Star magazine. Drudge Report picked up the story at this point, claiming the revelations had 'rocked the White House' and would lead to a 'paternity showdown.' But no showdown occurred. Contrary to expectations, the paternity test determined that Bill Clinton was not Danney Williams' father, Time magazine reported on 18 July 1999: Using the Starr Report's FBI analysis of Clinton's DNA as its reference, Star paid former prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams, the source for the Globe article, and her 13-year-old son for their story and blood samples. And the result: 'There was no match. Not even close,' says a Star source. (The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity.) But if the tabloid was disappointed by the results, it's putting up a good, Brill's Content-ready front. Says editor in chief Phil Bunton: 'We investigate dozens of stories every week, and if they don't prove to be true, we don't run them.' Ironically, given how enthusiastically they participated in reviving the story in 2016, it was the Drudge Report that hammered the final nail in its coffin: 'The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity,' TIME magazine reported. The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that 13-year old Danny Williams is now dealing with the news that Bill Clinton is not his father. 'Danny is holding up fine ... doing quite well,' a source close to the situation in Arkansas explained on Saturday. 'For him, this was always just a search for the truth,' the source added. In what now must be viewed as a cruel hoax by the boy's mother - Bobbie Ann Williams even gave a paid interview to PARAMOUNT's HARD COPY detailing her 'relationship' with Bill Clinton - the story of sex for money that ended in pregnancy itself, in the end, was debunked and flunked by science. That was not the last the world would hear of the story, however. On 17 June 2018, the same day Danney Williams tweeted a bittersweet Father's Day greeting to Bill Clinton, Haitian-American entrepreneur Carl Bavensky Paul offered a $20,000 donation to Donald Trump's next political campaign if the president would use his power to get Clinton to agree to a paternity test: Mr. President Can you use your presidential power to get @BillClinton to Do a DNA for this kid @danney_williams cause im curious about the result so does everyone else... I'm willing to pay for the test including a $20k donation on your next Campaign. Thank you Mr. @POTUS - Carl Barvensky Paul (@c_barvensky) June 17, 2018 Remainder of Doubt In fairness, there were a couple of issues with the reliability of the original paternity test. One was its origin: the tabloids. Despite running with the story, Time's only source for the Clinton paternity results was Star magazine (indeed, The Clintons' War on Women co-author and former Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone claims there is no evidence the test was ever conducted). The other was a 1999 piece published in Slate arguing that because it was based on the limited analysis provided in the Starr Report and not a new DNA sample, the test results were inconclusive: The FBI performed two genetic fingerprinting tests on the president's DNA. The Starr report, for unexplained reasons, gives data only for the less specific of the two tests. In fact, this test is imprecise enough that it would probably not be persuasive to a judge. Dr. George Riley of Genelex-a well-regarded forensic DNA lab-calculates that the genetic fingerprint given in the Starr report will most likely yield a so-called 'paternity index' of only 20 to 30. In other words, a positive test would mean that President Clinton is only 20 to 30 times more likely than a random Caucasian male to be Danny Williams' father. This would be suggestive but not conclusive. (50,000 white men in Arkansas would get the same test results.) The legal threshold is 100. At best the genetic fingerprint contained in the Starr report can only yield a paternity index of 120. The actual value depends on the mother's DNA. So, what's the evidence before us? 1. We have the sudden revisiting, in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, of a 1992 tabloid story claiming Bill Clinton had an illegitimate son by a prostitute - a story that all but disappeared in 1999 after it was reported that DNA testing failed to establish that Clinton was the father. 2. We have two social media accounts in Danney Williams' name, neither more than a year old, describing him as 'the son of the 42nd President of the United States - Bill Clinton.' 3. We have a plethora of head shots purporting to show a family resemblance between Clinton and Williams. 4. We have a frenetic, 11th-hour effort by partisan web sites - including Drudge Report, which in 1999 concluded that it had been 'debunked and flunked by science' - to peddle the Clinton love child narrative to voters. Our verdict: Unproven.Recent Updates Updated [19 June 2018]: Added report of a renewed effort to conduct a second DNA test to establish Bill Clinton's paternity.

nan

Bill Clinton fathered an illegitimate, mixed-race son named Danney Williams with an Arkansas prostitute in 1985.

Neutral

On 3 October 2016, five weeks before the U.S. presidential election, a decades-old tabloid story revealing the supposed existence of a 'love child' fathered by former president Bill Clinton in 1985 was resurrected by the Daily Mail, a London tabloid. Adorning the article were side-by-side photos comparing the facial features of Clinton and a 30-year-old mixed-race man named Danney Williams (or 'Danney Williams-Clinton,' as he prefers to call himself on Facebook), who claims that he is that love child and all he wants to do is meet his real dad - but he may never get a chance to, because Bill Clinton's wife Hillary, who is also (far from coincidentally) the current Democratic contender for the presidency, has 'banished' him. The Drudge Report pushed the story stateside, hyperlinking from its landing page to the Daily Mail article, Danney Williams' Twitter and Facebook pages, and a video by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones: 'Hillary Had Bill's Mixed Race Son Banished.' Behind the Bushes The story first grabbed international headlines when Bill Clinton was preparing to run for president in 1992, the Mail reported: The Globe interviewed Danney's mother, a former prostitute named Bobbie Ann Williams, who told the story of how she allegedly met and began a relationship with Clinton in 1984. She says Clinton went out for a run one day in Little Rock, when he jogged by her housing project and introduced himself to her. She was 24 years old at the time. A few days later, Clinton allegedly jogged by the housing project again and paid Bobbie $200 for her to have sex with him behind some bushes. After that, Bobbie says that she and Clinton regularly had sex, sometimes alone, sometimes with other female partners. When she found herself pregnant in 1985, Bobbie Ann Williams suspected from the beginning that it was Clinton's child, the story continues. She informed Clinton of the pregnancy, she said, but he laughed and said it couldn't be his. She became convinced beyond all doubt that Clinton was the father after the child was born on Dec. 7, 1985, because Danney had light skin, Williams told The Globe. She said Clinton was her only white client when she became pregnant. Williams is African American. Paternity Test: Negative Despite failing to attract mainstream media attention in its first outing, the Clinton love child melodrama was revisited in the late '90s by the conservative web site Newsmax, whose dogged coverage (amid claims of being strong-armed by Clinton operatives) led to the commissioning of a DNA paternity test by another weekly tabloid, Star magazine. Drudge Report picked up the story at this point, claiming the revelations had 'rocked the White House' and would lead to a 'paternity showdown.' But no showdown occurred. Contrary to expectations, the paternity test determined that Bill Clinton was not Danney Williams' father, Time magazine reported on 18 July 1999: Using the Starr Report's FBI analysis of Clinton's DNA as its reference, Star paid former prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams, the source for the Globe article, and her 13-year-old son for their story and blood samples. And the result: 'There was no match. Not even close,' says a Star source. (The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity.) But if the tabloid was disappointed by the results, it's putting up a good, Brill's Content-ready front. Says editor in chief Phil Bunton: 'We investigate dozens of stories every week, and if they don't prove to be true, we don't run them.' Ironically, given how enthusiastically they participated in reviving the story in 2016, it was the Drudge Report that hammered the final nail in its coffin: 'The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity,' TIME magazine reported. The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that 13-year old Danny Williams is now dealing with the news that Bill Clinton is not his father. 'Danny is holding up fine ... doing quite well,' a source close to the situation in Arkansas explained on Saturday. 'For him, this was always just a search for the truth,' the source added. In what now must be viewed as a cruel hoax by the boy's mother - Bobbie Ann Williams even gave a paid interview to PARAMOUNT's HARD COPY detailing her 'relationship' with Bill Clinton - the story of sex for money that ended in pregnancy itself, in the end, was debunked and flunked by science. That was not the last the world would hear of the story, however. On 17 June 2018, the same day Danney Williams tweeted a bittersweet Father's Day greeting to Bill Clinton, Haitian-American entrepreneur Carl Bavensky Paul offered a $20,000 donation to Donald Trump's next political campaign if the president would use his power to get Clinton to agree to a paternity test: Mr. President Can you use your presidential power to get @BillClinton to Do a DNA for this kid @danney_williams cause im curious about the result so does everyone else... I'm willing to pay for the test including a $20k donation on your next Campaign. Thank you Mr. @POTUS - Carl Barvensky Paul (@c_barvensky) June 17, 2018 Remainder of Doubt In fairness, there were a couple of issues with the reliability of the original paternity test. One was its origin: the tabloids. Despite running with the story, Time's only source for the Clinton paternity results was Star magazine (indeed, The Clintons' War on Women co-author and former Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone claims there is no evidence the test was ever conducted). The other was a 1999 piece published in Slate arguing that because it was based on the limited analysis provided in the Starr Report and not a new DNA sample, the test results were inconclusive: The FBI performed two genetic fingerprinting tests on the president's DNA. The Starr report, for unexplained reasons, gives data only for the less specific of the two tests. In fact, this test is imprecise enough that it would probably not be persuasive to a judge. Dr. George Riley of Genelex-a well-regarded forensic DNA lab-calculates that the genetic fingerprint given in the Starr report will most likely yield a so-called 'paternity index' of only 20 to 30. In other words, a positive test would mean that President Clinton is only 20 to 30 times more likely than a random Caucasian male to be Danny Williams' father. This would be suggestive but not conclusive. (50,000 white men in Arkansas would get the same test results.) The legal threshold is 100. At best the genetic fingerprint contained in the Starr report can only yield a paternity index of 120. The actual value depends on the mother's DNA. So, what's the evidence before us? 1. We have the sudden revisiting, in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, of a 1992 tabloid story claiming Bill Clinton had an illegitimate son by a prostitute - a story that all but disappeared in 1999 after it was reported that DNA testing failed to establish that Clinton was the father. 2. We have two social media accounts in Danney Williams' name, neither more than a year old, describing him as 'the son of the 42nd President of the United States - Bill Clinton.' 3. We have a plethora of head shots purporting to show a family resemblance between Clinton and Williams. 4. We have a frenetic, 11th-hour effort by partisan web sites - including Drudge Report, which in 1999 concluded that it had been 'debunked and flunked by science' - to peddle the Clinton love child narrative to voters. Our verdict: Unproven.Recent Updates Updated [19 June 2018]: Added report of a renewed effort to conduct a second DNA test to establish Bill Clinton's paternity.

nan

Bill Clinton fathered an illegitimate, mixed-race son named Danney Williams with an Arkansas prostitute in 1985.

Neutral

On 3 October 2016, five weeks before the U.S. presidential election, a decades-old tabloid story revealing the supposed existence of a 'love child' fathered by former president Bill Clinton in 1985 was resurrected by the Daily Mail, a London tabloid. Adorning the article were side-by-side photos comparing the facial features of Clinton and a 30-year-old mixed-race man named Danney Williams (or 'Danney Williams-Clinton,' as he prefers to call himself on Facebook), who claims that he is that love child and all he wants to do is meet his real dad - but he may never get a chance to, because Bill Clinton's wife Hillary, who is also (far from coincidentally) the current Democratic contender for the presidency, has 'banished' him. The Drudge Report pushed the story stateside, hyperlinking from its landing page to the Daily Mail article, Danney Williams' Twitter and Facebook pages, and a video by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones: 'Hillary Had Bill's Mixed Race Son Banished.' Behind the Bushes The story first grabbed international headlines when Bill Clinton was preparing to run for president in 1992, the Mail reported: The Globe interviewed Danney's mother, a former prostitute named Bobbie Ann Williams, who told the story of how she allegedly met and began a relationship with Clinton in 1984. She says Clinton went out for a run one day in Little Rock, when he jogged by her housing project and introduced himself to her. She was 24 years old at the time. A few days later, Clinton allegedly jogged by the housing project again and paid Bobbie $200 for her to have sex with him behind some bushes. After that, Bobbie says that she and Clinton regularly had sex, sometimes alone, sometimes with other female partners. When she found herself pregnant in 1985, Bobbie Ann Williams suspected from the beginning that it was Clinton's child, the story continues. She informed Clinton of the pregnancy, she said, but he laughed and said it couldn't be his. She became convinced beyond all doubt that Clinton was the father after the child was born on Dec. 7, 1985, because Danney had light skin, Williams told The Globe. She said Clinton was her only white client when she became pregnant. Williams is African American. Paternity Test: Negative Despite failing to attract mainstream media attention in its first outing, the Clinton love child melodrama was revisited in the late '90s by the conservative web site Newsmax, whose dogged coverage (amid claims of being strong-armed by Clinton operatives) led to the commissioning of a DNA paternity test by another weekly tabloid, Star magazine. Drudge Report picked up the story at this point, claiming the revelations had 'rocked the White House' and would lead to a 'paternity showdown.' But no showdown occurred. Contrary to expectations, the paternity test determined that Bill Clinton was not Danney Williams' father, Time magazine reported on 18 July 1999: Using the Starr Report's FBI analysis of Clinton's DNA as its reference, Star paid former prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams, the source for the Globe article, and her 13-year-old son for their story and blood samples. And the result: 'There was no match. Not even close,' says a Star source. (The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity.) But if the tabloid was disappointed by the results, it's putting up a good, Brill's Content-ready front. Says editor in chief Phil Bunton: 'We investigate dozens of stories every week, and if they don't prove to be true, we don't run them.' Ironically, given how enthusiastically they participated in reviving the story in 2016, it was the Drudge Report that hammered the final nail in its coffin: 'The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity,' TIME magazine reported. The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that 13-year old Danny Williams is now dealing with the news that Bill Clinton is not his father. 'Danny is holding up fine ... doing quite well,' a source close to the situation in Arkansas explained on Saturday. 'For him, this was always just a search for the truth,' the source added. In what now must be viewed as a cruel hoax by the boy's mother - Bobbie Ann Williams even gave a paid interview to PARAMOUNT's HARD COPY detailing her 'relationship' with Bill Clinton - the story of sex for money that ended in pregnancy itself, in the end, was debunked and flunked by science. That was not the last the world would hear of the story, however. On 17 June 2018, the same day Danney Williams tweeted a bittersweet Father's Day greeting to Bill Clinton, Haitian-American entrepreneur Carl Bavensky Paul offered a $20,000 donation to Donald Trump's next political campaign if the president would use his power to get Clinton to agree to a paternity test: Mr. President Can you use your presidential power to get @BillClinton to Do a DNA for this kid @danney_williams cause im curious about the result so does everyone else... I'm willing to pay for the test including a $20k donation on your next Campaign. Thank you Mr. @POTUS - Carl Barvensky Paul (@c_barvensky) June 17, 2018 Remainder of Doubt In fairness, there were a couple of issues with the reliability of the original paternity test. One was its origin: the tabloids. Despite running with the story, Time's only source for the Clinton paternity results was Star magazine (indeed, The Clintons' War on Women co-author and former Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone claims there is no evidence the test was ever conducted). The other was a 1999 piece published in Slate arguing that because it was based on the limited analysis provided in the Starr Report and not a new DNA sample, the test results were inconclusive: The FBI performed two genetic fingerprinting tests on the president's DNA. The Starr report, for unexplained reasons, gives data only for the less specific of the two tests. In fact, this test is imprecise enough that it would probably not be persuasive to a judge. Dr. George Riley of Genelex-a well-regarded forensic DNA lab-calculates that the genetic fingerprint given in the Starr report will most likely yield a so-called 'paternity index' of only 20 to 30. In other words, a positive test would mean that President Clinton is only 20 to 30 times more likely than a random Caucasian male to be Danny Williams' father. This would be suggestive but not conclusive. (50,000 white men in Arkansas would get the same test results.) The legal threshold is 100. At best the genetic fingerprint contained in the Starr report can only yield a paternity index of 120. The actual value depends on the mother's DNA. So, what's the evidence before us? 1. We have the sudden revisiting, in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, of a 1992 tabloid story claiming Bill Clinton had an illegitimate son by a prostitute - a story that all but disappeared in 1999 after it was reported that DNA testing failed to establish that Clinton was the father. 2. We have two social media accounts in Danney Williams' name, neither more than a year old, describing him as 'the son of the 42nd President of the United States - Bill Clinton.' 3. We have a plethora of head shots purporting to show a family resemblance between Clinton and Williams. 4. We have a frenetic, 11th-hour effort by partisan web sites - including Drudge Report, which in 1999 concluded that it had been 'debunked and flunked by science' - to peddle the Clinton love child narrative to voters. Our verdict: Unproven.Recent Updates Updated [19 June 2018]: Added report of a renewed effort to conduct a second DNA test to establish Bill Clinton's paternity.

nan

Bill Clinton fathered an illegitimate, mixed-race son named Danney Williams with an Arkansas prostitute in 1985.

Neutral

On 3 October 2016, five weeks before the U.S. presidential election, a decades-old tabloid story revealing the supposed existence of a 'love child' fathered by former president Bill Clinton in 1985 was resurrected by the Daily Mail, a London tabloid. Adorning the article were side-by-side photos comparing the facial features of Clinton and a 30-year-old mixed-race man named Danney Williams (or 'Danney Williams-Clinton,' as he prefers to call himself on Facebook), who claims that he is that love child and all he wants to do is meet his real dad - but he may never get a chance to, because Bill Clinton's wife Hillary, who is also (far from coincidentally) the current Democratic contender for the presidency, has 'banished' him. The Drudge Report pushed the story stateside, hyperlinking from its landing page to the Daily Mail article, Danney Williams' Twitter and Facebook pages, and a video by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones: 'Hillary Had Bill's Mixed Race Son Banished.' Behind the Bushes The story first grabbed international headlines when Bill Clinton was preparing to run for president in 1992, the Mail reported: The Globe interviewed Danney's mother, a former prostitute named Bobbie Ann Williams, who told the story of how she allegedly met and began a relationship with Clinton in 1984. She says Clinton went out for a run one day in Little Rock, when he jogged by her housing project and introduced himself to her. She was 24 years old at the time. A few days later, Clinton allegedly jogged by the housing project again and paid Bobbie $200 for her to have sex with him behind some bushes. After that, Bobbie says that she and Clinton regularly had sex, sometimes alone, sometimes with other female partners. When she found herself pregnant in 1985, Bobbie Ann Williams suspected from the beginning that it was Clinton's child, the story continues. She informed Clinton of the pregnancy, she said, but he laughed and said it couldn't be his. She became convinced beyond all doubt that Clinton was the father after the child was born on Dec. 7, 1985, because Danney had light skin, Williams told The Globe. She said Clinton was her only white client when she became pregnant. Williams is African American. Paternity Test: Negative Despite failing to attract mainstream media attention in its first outing, the Clinton love child melodrama was revisited in the late '90s by the conservative web site Newsmax, whose dogged coverage (amid claims of being strong-armed by Clinton operatives) led to the commissioning of a DNA paternity test by another weekly tabloid, Star magazine. Drudge Report picked up the story at this point, claiming the revelations had 'rocked the White House' and would lead to a 'paternity showdown.' But no showdown occurred. Contrary to expectations, the paternity test determined that Bill Clinton was not Danney Williams' father, Time magazine reported on 18 July 1999: Using the Starr Report's FBI analysis of Clinton's DNA as its reference, Star paid former prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams, the source for the Globe article, and her 13-year-old son for their story and blood samples. And the result: 'There was no match. Not even close,' says a Star source. (The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity.) But if the tabloid was disappointed by the results, it's putting up a good, Brill's Content-ready front. Says editor in chief Phil Bunton: 'We investigate dozens of stories every week, and if they don't prove to be true, we don't run them.' Ironically, given how enthusiastically they participated in reviving the story in 2016, it was the Drudge Report that hammered the final nail in its coffin: 'The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity,' TIME magazine reported. The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that 13-year old Danny Williams is now dealing with the news that Bill Clinton is not his father. 'Danny is holding up fine ... doing quite well,' a source close to the situation in Arkansas explained on Saturday. 'For him, this was always just a search for the truth,' the source added. In what now must be viewed as a cruel hoax by the boy's mother - Bobbie Ann Williams even gave a paid interview to PARAMOUNT's HARD COPY detailing her 'relationship' with Bill Clinton - the story of sex for money that ended in pregnancy itself, in the end, was debunked and flunked by science. That was not the last the world would hear of the story, however. On 17 June 2018, the same day Danney Williams tweeted a bittersweet Father's Day greeting to Bill Clinton, Haitian-American entrepreneur Carl Bavensky Paul offered a $20,000 donation to Donald Trump's next political campaign if the president would use his power to get Clinton to agree to a paternity test: Mr. President Can you use your presidential power to get @BillClinton to Do a DNA for this kid @danney_williams cause im curious about the result so does everyone else... I'm willing to pay for the test including a $20k donation on your next Campaign. Thank you Mr. @POTUS - Carl Barvensky Paul (@c_barvensky) June 17, 2018 Remainder of Doubt In fairness, there were a couple of issues with the reliability of the original paternity test. One was its origin: the tabloids. Despite running with the story, Time's only source for the Clinton paternity results was Star magazine (indeed, The Clintons' War on Women co-author and former Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone claims there is no evidence the test was ever conducted). The other was a 1999 piece published in Slate arguing that because it was based on the limited analysis provided in the Starr Report and not a new DNA sample, the test results were inconclusive: The FBI performed two genetic fingerprinting tests on the president's DNA. The Starr report, for unexplained reasons, gives data only for the less specific of the two tests. In fact, this test is imprecise enough that it would probably not be persuasive to a judge. Dr. George Riley of Genelex-a well-regarded forensic DNA lab-calculates that the genetic fingerprint given in the Starr report will most likely yield a so-called 'paternity index' of only 20 to 30. In other words, a positive test would mean that President Clinton is only 20 to 30 times more likely than a random Caucasian male to be Danny Williams' father. This would be suggestive but not conclusive. (50,000 white men in Arkansas would get the same test results.) The legal threshold is 100. At best the genetic fingerprint contained in the Starr report can only yield a paternity index of 120. The actual value depends on the mother's DNA. So, what's the evidence before us? 1. We have the sudden revisiting, in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, of a 1992 tabloid story claiming Bill Clinton had an illegitimate son by a prostitute - a story that all but disappeared in 1999 after it was reported that DNA testing failed to establish that Clinton was the father. 2. We have two social media accounts in Danney Williams' name, neither more than a year old, describing him as 'the son of the 42nd President of the United States - Bill Clinton.' 3. We have a plethora of head shots purporting to show a family resemblance between Clinton and Williams. 4. We have a frenetic, 11th-hour effort by partisan web sites - including Drudge Report, which in 1999 concluded that it had been 'debunked and flunked by science' - to peddle the Clinton love child narrative to voters. Our verdict: Unproven.Recent Updates Updated [19 June 2018]: Added report of a renewed effort to conduct a second DNA test to establish Bill Clinton's paternity.

nan

A candidate named Vermin Supreme is running for President in 2016 on a platform of free ponies for everyone.

Neutral

The above-reproduced meme, which has been circulating on social media for an indeterminate amount of time, showed a man wearing two ties and a boot on his head. It maintained: In New Hampshire, a man calling himself vermin supreme filed for the presidential primary. He said in his administration, every American will receive a pony. He also plans to defeat ISIS by going back in time. On 24 November 2015, the web site deathandtaxes published an article titled 'Vermin Supreme running for president, still wants to give everyone a pony'; that item subsequently explained the 'candidate' was no newcomer to politics and had been engaging in acts of political art and protest since the 1980s: Perennial political candidate Vermin Supreme filed papers on Friday to run for the presidential primary in New Hampshire. In a field that includes 30 Republicans and 28 Democrats, the Maryland Democrat stands out for his unique headgear, lush, wizard-like beard, and consistently pro-pony platform. Asked about how he'd defeat terrorists, he answered 'Hooves on the ground and boots on our heads!' Political Monitor reports that Mr. Supreme paid his $1,000 registration fee in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians.' Of course, this ain't his first rodeo; this will be the protest candidate's seventh run for president of these United States, and he's been using absurdist humor to agitate against bourgeois democracy and stir up protest votes since the 1980s. But with 'serious' candidates for president like Ben Carson and Donald Trump getting more outlandish by the day, the Vermin message seems more relevant than ever. An ABC.net.au article titled 'Vermin Supreme 2016: Alternative US presidential candidate promises free ponies for all' reported that the 'bearded eccentric ... regularly sports a boot on his head' and 'has been running for public office since 1987': A well-known performance artist and activist has declared he will run as a US presidential candidate on a free pony platform. Vermin Supreme filed his paperwork for the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot on the last day before applications closed, along with the registration fee of $US1,000 - which he paid in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians'. 'The pony-based economy is truly the most important issue in America today. Fossil fuels are literally killing the planet, and today, we stop that,' he told the crowd gathered for his filing. 'We don't need no more cars, we have ponies.' The approximate date on which the above-reproduced meme was created was unclear, but the image in question appeared no later than May 2012, and was unrelated to Vermin Supreme's November 2015 filings. A 21 January 2016 CNN piece titled 'The presidential candidates you've never heard of' reported that Supreme's earlier campaigns were thwarted by a ban relating to 'property damage' during a 2011 debate: At the last lesser-known candidate debate in 2011, he stood up and poured glitter over the head of one of his competitors in order to, in his words, 'make him gay.' Supreme was barred from the forum this year for 'property damage' and relegated to a zone surrounded by police tape outside the debate hall, where he stood with two toy ponies, a campaign sign painted onto a boogie board and a giant boot on his head. A 2012 item from CNN described Supreme's 28 August 2012 appearance outside the Republican National Convention in Tampa: The gray-bearded hippie standing between them wore a boot on his head. 'Between the cops and the protesters, there's a vacuum. That's the space I occupy,' Vermin Supreme explained afterward. 'It looked a little scary. It looked like it might get tense.' The self-described 'friendly fascist,' who is a perennial presidential candidate and veteran of countless protests, recited passages from police manuals on crowd control tactics. Using the bullhorn, he urged calm: 'Nobody needs to get hurt here.' A man next to him started to warble 'Over the Rainbow,' and Vermin Supreme felt soothed. He held the bullhorn close to the singer, letting the melody wash over the crowd of about 150. The tension melted away. It was, he said, 'a beautiful moment.' So while it's true Vermin Supreme has been throwing his hat (or boot) into the ring electorally since roughly 1987, his forays were never intended to be serious campaigns. Supreme is a performance artist, and political events are a common medium through which he performs.

nan

A candidate named Vermin Supreme is running for President in 2016 on a platform of free ponies for everyone.

Neutral

The above-reproduced meme, which has been circulating on social media for an indeterminate amount of time, showed a man wearing two ties and a boot on his head. It maintained: In New Hampshire, a man calling himself vermin supreme filed for the presidential primary. He said in his administration, every American will receive a pony. He also plans to defeat ISIS by going back in time. On 24 November 2015, the web site deathandtaxes published an article titled 'Vermin Supreme running for president, still wants to give everyone a pony'; that item subsequently explained the 'candidate' was no newcomer to politics and had been engaging in acts of political art and protest since the 1980s: Perennial political candidate Vermin Supreme filed papers on Friday to run for the presidential primary in New Hampshire. In a field that includes 30 Republicans and 28 Democrats, the Maryland Democrat stands out for his unique headgear, lush, wizard-like beard, and consistently pro-pony platform. Asked about how he'd defeat terrorists, he answered 'Hooves on the ground and boots on our heads!' Political Monitor reports that Mr. Supreme paid his $1,000 registration fee in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians.' Of course, this ain't his first rodeo; this will be the protest candidate's seventh run for president of these United States, and he's been using absurdist humor to agitate against bourgeois democracy and stir up protest votes since the 1980s. But with 'serious' candidates for president like Ben Carson and Donald Trump getting more outlandish by the day, the Vermin message seems more relevant than ever. An ABC.net.au article titled 'Vermin Supreme 2016: Alternative US presidential candidate promises free ponies for all' reported that the 'bearded eccentric ... regularly sports a boot on his head' and 'has been running for public office since 1987': A well-known performance artist and activist has declared he will run as a US presidential candidate on a free pony platform. Vermin Supreme filed his paperwork for the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot on the last day before applications closed, along with the registration fee of $US1,000 - which he paid in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians'. 'The pony-based economy is truly the most important issue in America today. Fossil fuels are literally killing the planet, and today, we stop that,' he told the crowd gathered for his filing. 'We don't need no more cars, we have ponies.' The approximate date on which the above-reproduced meme was created was unclear, but the image in question appeared no later than May 2012, and was unrelated to Vermin Supreme's November 2015 filings. A 21 January 2016 CNN piece titled 'The presidential candidates you've never heard of' reported that Supreme's earlier campaigns were thwarted by a ban relating to 'property damage' during a 2011 debate: At the last lesser-known candidate debate in 2011, he stood up and poured glitter over the head of one of his competitors in order to, in his words, 'make him gay.' Supreme was barred from the forum this year for 'property damage' and relegated to a zone surrounded by police tape outside the debate hall, where he stood with two toy ponies, a campaign sign painted onto a boogie board and a giant boot on his head. A 2012 item from CNN described Supreme's 28 August 2012 appearance outside the Republican National Convention in Tampa: The gray-bearded hippie standing between them wore a boot on his head. 'Between the cops and the protesters, there's a vacuum. That's the space I occupy,' Vermin Supreme explained afterward. 'It looked a little scary. It looked like it might get tense.' The self-described 'friendly fascist,' who is a perennial presidential candidate and veteran of countless protests, recited passages from police manuals on crowd control tactics. Using the bullhorn, he urged calm: 'Nobody needs to get hurt here.' A man next to him started to warble 'Over the Rainbow,' and Vermin Supreme felt soothed. He held the bullhorn close to the singer, letting the melody wash over the crowd of about 150. The tension melted away. It was, he said, 'a beautiful moment.' So while it's true Vermin Supreme has been throwing his hat (or boot) into the ring electorally since roughly 1987, his forays were never intended to be serious campaigns. Supreme is a performance artist, and political events are a common medium through which he performs.

nan