Given a document, an entity and its sentiment towards the entity, verify if it is the correct sentiment towards the entity. Answer should be yes or no. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Pope Francis Letter is Negative . Well  it’s now happened.  The great scandal of the modern Catholic Church  —  its  tolerance for clergy who abuse children  and  its  laxity when dealing with bishops who themselves tolerated or enabled priest-abusers — now touches directly on  the pope himself .
 It ’s worth laying out the timeline clearly. In 2015  Pope Francis appointed Juan Barros Madrid to the bishopric of Osorno  Chile. The appointment was met with local protests  among Catholics and non-Catholics who believed that Barros was implicated in the crimes of child sexual abuse committed by his friend Father Fernando Karadima  a prominent Chilean churchman who habitually kissed and fondled boys. In the days after the installation of Barros at Osono  Pope Francis told an archbishop that there was “no objective reason at all” to oppose the appointment. The Vatican’s own department governing these matters  the Congregation for Bishops  released a statement saying they had “carefully examined the prelate’s candidature and did not find objective reasons to preclude the appointment.”
In the months following the appointment   Pope Francis  became extremely dismissive of complaints. “Osorno suffers  yes  for silliness ”  the pope  said of the outrage in the media. “Think with your head  and do not be carried away by the noses of the leftists  who are the ones who put this thing together ” he added.
A few weeks ago   Pope Francis ’s visit to Chile was marked by protests  and  the pope  continued  his  extremely brusque dismissal. “The day I see proof against Bishop Barros  then I will talk ” the pontiff said. “There is not a single piece of evidence against  him . It is all slander. Is that clear?”  Francis  said that no victims had come forward to  him . It was apparently this statement that caused Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston to scramble down to Chile and meet with the pope. After O’Malley’s intervention  presumably  the pope issued a half-apology  but repeated that the accusations against Barros were “slander” before adding  “I’m convinced he’s innocent.”
And now the news drops. In the time between the pope’s appointment of Barros and his commentary about protesters being carried away by leftists  members of the Vatican’s own Commission for the Protection of Minors gathered to discuss the appointment. They had a representative hand-deliver a letter to Pope Francis  from Carlos Cruz. The letter alleged  in lurid detail  that Barros had personally witnessed the abuse of Cruz at Karadima’s hands. Members of the commission photographed the hand-off of the letter to  the pope   to reassure Cruz that they were doing everything possible to make his cry for justice heard.
The facts as we know them leave us with a few interpretations. 1)  Pope Francis  simply never read the letter  ignoring this extraordinary intervention by the Vatican’s own commission on a matter of public controversy for  his  pontificate. 2)  Francis  read the letter but forgot about it  reverting to  his  original understanding of the case. 3)  Francis  read the letter  but stuck to  his  decision for Barros  committing unintentional or intentional deceptions about the state of  his  knowledge of the accusations. 4)  He  read the letter  but either doubted the accusations in it  or at least found them so unimpressive that  he  did not decide to follow up on them.
The first explanation would mean that  Francis  was culpably ignorant. The second that  he  may lack the mental or moral faculties to competently govern the Catholic Church. The third that  he  is too stubborn or vain to change course in the face of evidence. And the last that  he  has little trust or faith in the Commission on the Protection of Minors to pass on credible counsel to  him . Perhaps more reporting or disclosure will change our understanding  but none of these are satisfactory.
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Carter Page is Neutral . FBI had an independent basis for investigating  Carter Page : Our view
 Carter Page  speaks in Moscow in December 2016. (Photo: Yuri Kochetkov/epa)
Thatâs the backdrop to this weekendâs release of a Democratic memo countering what amounted to a Republican hit job on the FBI and the Justice Department for their handling of a wiretap of  Carter Page   a former adviser to the Donald Trump campaign.
The Democratsâ memo neatly counters many of the Republican allegations of sinister doings behind the 2016 wiretap of  Page . The release  by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee  was as welcome as it was belated. True to form  Trumpâs focus was on himself. He railed against the Democratic memo  tweeting that it âis a total political and legal BUST. Just confirms all of the terrible things that were done. SO ILLEGAL!â
That memo  put out more than three weeks ago  accused the FBI of using an explosive dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele to persuade a judge on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court  also known as the FISA court  to grant a warrant for a wiretap in 2016 on  Page . The key allegation: The FBI failed to inform the judge that Steele had been hired to do opposition research funded by Hillary Clintonâs campaign.
Thatâs quite a different picture than the one painted by Republicans  who had hyped the  Page  wiretap as the scandal of the century.
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Doris Truong is Positive . A couple of weeks ago   Washington Post homepage editor Doris Truong  found  herself  at the center of a partisan flame war. During a break in Rex Tillersonâs confirmation hearing for secretary of state  an Asian woman was spotted appearing to take snapshots of Tillersonâs notes. Bloggers quickly decided that the woman in the video must be Truong  who also happens to be Asian. One Reddit thread  for instance  was titled â Fake News Journalist Doris Truong  caught taking photos of Rex Tillerson's notes from confirmation hearing today.â The thing is   Truong  was not covering the Tillerson hearing. To put it in her own words: âTrolls decided I was taking pictures of Rex Tillersonâs notes. I wasnât even there.â On a typical day   Truong  gets maybe a half dozen mentions on Twitter. By 10 a.m. on Thursday  Jan. 12 â the day after  she  had been falsely identified as the woman from the picture â  she  had 4 638 new mentions since the previous evening. And it just kept going. Within 24 hours   her  handle had been mentioned 20 179 times  an increase of 185 300%  according to screenshots provided by  Truong . Hereâs what that looked like:
Note: This graphic is based on a BuzzFeed News analysis of 24 731 mentions of  Truong âs twitter handle  @doristruong  starting roughly two days before false stories of  her  started circulating on the web and ending seven days after the incident. Source: Twitterâs API
âThat initial moment of seeing the Twitter notifications was dumbfounding â  Truong  wrote in an email to BuzzFeed News. âI was looking at the app on my cellphone  where '20+' is the readout even if an account has far more mentions. I had to scroll through dozens of screens of people saying âhow dare youâ (and worse) to finally figure out what had caught their attention.â
Experiences like Truongâs are becoming more and more common. According to a recent study from Data & Society  47% of internet users aged 15 and older have experienced online harassment or abuse at some point. Thirty-six percent of all respondents reported that they had been harassed directly  meaning they had been threatened  called abusive names  or stalked. When a story goes viral  this experience is amplified. âThis idea of people coming together within specific affinity groups and behaving in ways that are really good for the âinâ group and terrible for members of the âoutâ group [...] thereâs nothing new about that â said Whitney M. Phillips  a professor at Mercer University who has been studying how people talk online for close to 10 years and who has written a book about online trolling titled This Is Why We Canât Have Nice Things. âBut having different tools means we suddenly have new superpowers.â Though online trolling has existed for years  experts like Phillips worry that the election of Donald Trump as president may embolden people who already harass others online. Trump has insulted politicians  media organizations  public figures  and private citizens on Twitter  which  in some cases  has incited his supporters to launch social media attacks on the people he singled out. He has spread and amplified skewed information and has tweeted falsehoods. âWhat do you do when the president is doing the thing that youâre trying to get average citizens not to do anymore?â said Phillips. Truongâs story became a battleground for different factions to debate their own views about the media and politics. While roughly 70% of the 100 most retweeted tweets about her contained insults against her  the media  and/or "liberals " a little less than a third of all the mentions from that same sample were trying to defend  Truong  (and a small percentage were not related to the story).
Those who believed the false story about  Truong  slung insults toward her. âWhere is your integrity? Oh wait you work for WaPo don't youâ or âMedia is SCUM â some wrote. A few also featured hashtags like #WashingtonCompost in their tweets. Others swooped in to defend her:
This factioning of responses mirrors how politically divided the nation is and just how important identity politics have become in the digital realm. Participating in debates like this is âthe digital equivalent of wearing a Make America Great Again hat and a pussy hat [...] Itâs that idea that youâre signaling your affiliation with your group â said Phillips. âIf someone comes at you screaming  itâs very tempting to scream back at them.â The most intense part of  Truong âs experience lasted approximately three days. And though she told BuzzFeed News that she was âmildly concernedâ about her safety  she wrote that she will continue to use social media platforms: âThe whole episode is not going to drive me off social media  which provides a way for me to connect with people across the miles  including strangers  and to be exposed to a diversity of opinions â including ones I disagree with.â
[EX A]:
yes