Enthusiast01 (talk | contribs) →Alleged WP:OR: fine tuning |
→Alleged WP:OR: comment |
||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
:: I also suggest that at least the other parts of the edit have merit in their own right and should be reinstated. The objection to the term "alleged" could have been simply rectified (by the deletion of the word, in two places) without purging all the other relevant and significant material. [[User:Enthusiast01|Enthusiast01]] ([[User talk:Enthusiast01|talk]]) 10:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC) |
:: I also suggest that at least the other parts of the edit have merit in their own right and should be reinstated. The objection to the term "alleged" could have been simply rectified (by the deletion of the word, in two places) without purging all the other relevant and significant material. [[User:Enthusiast01|Enthusiast01]] ([[User talk:Enthusiast01|talk]]) 10:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::That's not true to the sources, one of which states "Trump Shared Intelligence Secrets With Russians in Oval Office Meeting". They simply don't call it alleged and neither should we. I did not find the rest of your edit to be an improvement. "There was..." is not a good way to start an article. Your addition of "and other Russian staff were present, which allegedly included" adds trivial detail and, again, the word "allegedly" which tends to cast doubt where none is expressed in the body of sources. The rearrangement of the Israel comment may be OK, but it would help if you could explain how it's an improvement.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 15:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:41, 22 May 2017
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
References
16 malformed references compromise the article. MaynardClark (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
-This is incredibly important. Having a deletion notice just seems absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smghz (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
It's seems more than a little ridiculous to me that articles like this are on Wikipedia when the primary sources for the story aren't named. We should make it clear that, like the alleged Trump-Russia connection, this story is also based on an anonymous source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.83.146.221 (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
"According to Washington Post..."
The story has now been independently verified by other outlets: Reuters, Buzzfeed, New York Times and several others. WaPo was the first to break the story but now is no longer the only one. This should be corrected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Defiant Trump says he had 'right' to share information with Russia - CNNPolitics.com. That Trump is vigorously defending his right as President to share whatever information he wants in the context of the WaPo story says to me that this article is about something important. The content of this shouldn't be removed from the Wikipedia. RaymondYee (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not going anywhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Article's Name?
I think the name could be better. Any ideas?Casprings (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to propose changing the word "revelation" to "disclosure". It seems more neutral and less emotionally charged. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- If this article is going to be expanded in scope then it needs a broader title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, but those discussions will take a while, so on the short-term we should still try to keep the current title as neutral as possible. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I like disclosure.Casprings (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Disclosure is much better. If the scope of the article expands, a broader title would of course be needed.- MrX 02:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that "disclosure" is better. Neutralitytalk 02:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Disclosure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I like disclosure.Casprings (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, but those discussions will take a while, so on the short-term we should still try to keep the current title as neutral as possible. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done – Looks like quick consensus on "disclosure": I have moved the article to Disclosure of classified information to Russia by Donald Trump, and updated templates that point here. — JFG talk 09:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, and Casprings moved it to Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia… I think that's bad grammar but not a big deal. I moved the edit notice for you. And template links again. — JFG talk 09:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- My understanding of consensus was to replace the word revelation with disclosure. I think the new title is too long and one should always lead with the subject. It should be Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think it should use the possessive. Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have kept the simpler version changing just "revelation" to "disclosure", per consensus. Let's keep it stable for a while. Next move, if any, should go through the WP:Move request process. — JFG talk 10:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Article Name Version 2: Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia ----->Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia
I think we would be served by adding a possessive term. 1. It is right grammatically. 2. It quickly tells the reader the substance of the article. Casprings (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, please do that as soon as possible. It is grammatically correct, and concise as a title should be. (And indeed, Donald Trump does "own" this disclosure). I would do it myself, but don't know how to change a title, and would be worried about affecting things that link here. I hope the next knowledgeable editor who reads this will do it.—OhioOakTree (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
sources
Just a note: not naming the sources explicitly is how ethical journalism works. A journalist who names his sources in cases such as these would lose credibility so that no one would talk to them in the future and also breech ethical standards since they may put the source at risk.
I mean, there's a reason why "Deep Throat" was called "Deep Throat.
Again, this is how journalism works, so adding in nonsense about "but it was unnamed sources" is profoundly ignorant and of course POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Gee. Same problem as Pres. Trump compromising US intelligence sources. A source is a source of course of course. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Israel
I think some important stuff is Breaking and needs some other context.
1. Israel is the source of the Intel: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news 2. Israel was warned not to share Intel with the US because it could be passed to Russia and on to Iran: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.764711
Would add myself, but busy. Casprings (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I got the first part. Second part still needs adding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Report from the Russian reporters
I am sure English WP:RS's will provide the key points from this, but the link is to the Russian news source that was in the room when trump made the statements. Apparently it has a lot details. If anyone reads Russian, have at it. http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/4254477 Casprings (talk),
- From the source, it says he detailed an ISIS plot to disguise bombs as tablets and laptops and named the town where the informant uncovered the plan. It also details some US counter-operations in Iraq and Syria aimed at neutralizing the plot and raiding ISIS positions. It also calls Trump a dimwit and a spys dream.Casprings (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Right, that basically confirms everything in the original WaPo source. I guess the significance is that now Russian media is confirming it too after briefly playing coy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 17 May 2017
Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia → Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia – Grammer per MOS:POSS. Possessive term needed. Provides a short title that quickly tells who's disclosure this was Casprings (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support. More grammatically sensible. 2600:1002:B111:2A77:D4BC:601B:1BEE:35FF (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support, makes sense per grammar specifications and reading of title to readers landing on page. Sagecandor (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support as more grammatical.- MrX 13:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – Best practice in article titles is not "John Doe's actions" but "Actions by John Doe" or "Actions of John Doe", for example Presidency of Donald Trump, List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump, Political appointments of Donald Trump, etc. I would support a move to Disclosure of classified information to Russia by Donald Trump. — JFG talk 15:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would support this idea by JFG as well. Sagecandor (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support. This is more grammatical, clear, and brief. The "disclosure of classified information to Russia by Donald Trrump" suggestion would be more grammatical as well, but I think overly long. There's no principle against using apostrophes in article titles, where appropriate - we do it fairly regularly (e.g., President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur). Neutralitytalk 16:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support. More grammatical. --Jimjianghk (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support It is more grammatical, although may have to be moved again later to Disclosure of classified information to Russia by Donald Trump.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose at least until we assess how we name articles that begin with a person's name followed by a noun phrase, such as
- George McGovern presidential campaign, 1972
- Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento
- George W. Bush military service controversy
- Bush tax cuts
- Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair (not: Mark Sanford's disappearance and extramarital affair) (redirects to Temporary disappearance of Mark Sanford —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: these examples are not absolute possessive relationships, i.e. Ford didn't "possess" or "own" his assassination attempt—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support per proper grammar. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support JFG's version – Disclosure of classified information to Russia by Donald Trump. Laurdecl talk 07:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support - grammatically correct. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support - grammatically correct and still concise.—OhioOakTree (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Is this WP:SNOW ?Casprings (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Casprings, Sagecandor, MrX, Neutrality, Jimjianghk, I'm on day 4, BullRangifer, SW3 5DL, OhioOakTree: Given the plethora of Wikipedia article titles consisting of a human name followed by a noun phrase, without apostrophe-s at the end of the name, are you sure that "grammatically correct" justifies this move? Are the examples I noted above grammatically incorrect? Also, does MOS:POSS apply to article titles, which are often in a form of Telegraphese? —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. You raise a valid counterargument. I don't see MOS:POSS being much help, but if omission of possesives in article titles is a widespread pratice, then it should be memorialized in a style guide or guideline.- MrX 23:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The famous math theorem named after Pythagoras can be called the "Pythagorean theorem" or "Pythagoras's theorem". But it is never called "Pythagoras theorem". We can call this article the "Trumpean discolosure..." but I think "Trump's disclosure" is better. I think Pythagoras's example stands as the most time-tested example of a title named after someone who owns it. My preference is to use that as the preferred precedent.—OhioOakTree (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe the other articles should be changed? That makes sense to me. That said, it isn't policy and some articles do use a ' .Casprings (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- WP:MOS#Article titles says that the MoS applies to the title. However, MOS:POSS allows rewording, which is very common. For example we have countless number of article titles beginning with "Death of" or "Murder of". Politrukki (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support – but proposition by JFG – Disclosure of classified information to Russia by Donald Trump – is better. Politrukki (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support - per grammar. This article has already been moved. Someone with closing experience should close this discussion and start a new discussion or a subsection for a rename per JFG's suggestion. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Move was completed: It appears there is consensus to move the article (change title). I removed the "Requested move" template from this discussion, so the lead tag in the article can be removed (and not be reintroduced by a bot).—OhioOakTree (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Although the move has been carried out, this does not foreclose the discussion from continuing. Any editor can boldly engage in a minor technical move, which the mover here appears to believe this move was (characterizing it as fixing a grammatical error); any editor can revert such a move. The discussion is apart from that activity, but as it has not been formally closed, it will continue until the full seven days for discussion has elapsed. A different outcome in the discussion will still override any change made in the interim. bd2412 T 20:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Point of this article?
What's the point of this article? Shouldn't this be in a section on the Donald Trump main article? It seems strange to make a new article for every single allegation against Trump by the mainstream media and the so called intelligence community on practically nonexistent "evidence" and anonymous sources. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- You should check the AfD discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- AfD? Nikolai Romanov (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Nikolai Romanov: That means the article was nominated for deletion, and a discussion among many editors resulted in a decision to keep it:. I happen to agree with your point: this subject matter could have been limited to a section in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, however Wikipedia tends to create articles for events that get massive press coverage. See WP:V, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENT for more insights on why this happens. Kind regards, — JFG talk 04:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Inclusion of all this material would create an WP:Undue weight situation in the main article. To deal with this type of situation, we have a practice here of creating subarticles, like this one, and then including a short summary in the main article, and that's done here: Donald Trump#Disclosure of classified information to Russia. That section contains a "main" link to this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed @JFG: as I said in the AfD we cant keep piling on info about Russia into the article about Trump's presidency. If this were a one off thing I would agree with you but this is part of something larger now due to multiple alleged links to Russia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- In my personal opinion, many dubious stories about DT have found their way into Wikipedia, giving them the impression of solid fact. Wikipedia has great weight in how people perceive, interact with information. I would think that silence on such contested issues, at least temporary would be preferable to rushed commentary. Even the title of an article has great power to shape people's understanding; the power Wikipedia has in this regard should not be abused, nor should the greater mission it accomplishes be endangered by letting it wade into the shallow, perilous waters of partisan commentary. Researchers do not haste to draw conclusions, nor should an encyclopedia attempt this without good cause. 128.112.165.239 (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have any specific concerns about a statement in this article which isn't supported by an accurate reference? If so, fix it, or bring up specific issues here.—OhioOakTree (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- In my personal opinion, many dubious stories about DT have found their way into Wikipedia, giving them the impression of solid fact. Wikipedia has great weight in how people perceive, interact with information. I would think that silence on such contested issues, at least temporary would be preferable to rushed commentary. Even the title of an article has great power to shape people's understanding; the power Wikipedia has in this regard should not be abused, nor should the greater mission it accomplishes be endangered by letting it wade into the shallow, perilous waters of partisan commentary. Researchers do not haste to draw conclusions, nor should an encyclopedia attempt this without good cause. 128.112.165.239 (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Edits by IP user 125.200.105.194 add information NOT in cited source
Edits by 125.200.105.194 (talk · contribs) add information NOT in cited source, unsourced information about WP:BLPs, and misrepresentation of info at [1]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"Unbalanced" tag
I object to the "unbalanced" tag [2] added by Feelthebernofyourwallet (talk · contribs).
The article is quite meticulously referenced.
The user fails to explain any reasoning on the talk page for the "unbalanced" tag.
It should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. I removed it. If an editor considers adding it back, please cite specific justification for doing so here.—OhioOakTree (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Alleged WP:OR
I object to this edit which has now been made twice by Enthusiast01 It violates WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:ALLEGED. Most reliable sources do not describe the disclosure as alleged and Trump confirmed it. Stating alleged twice in the same sentence is especially bad. - MrX 22:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agree.Casprings (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed - it's at odds with the sources. As we know, Trump has acknowledged/confirmed this. Neutralitytalk 00:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do not agree. Trump has not confirmed that he disclosed "classified information" or any information at all. He said "As President I wanted to share with Russia ... which I have the absolute right to do ...". He did not say what information was disclosed, especially whether it was classified. He merely said "he wanted to share" and that he has an "absolute right to do" so. He won't hang based on that statement, and I believe he chose his words deliberately. Also, there have been other denials, which have not been withdrawn and still stand. Enthusiast01 (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I also suggest that at least the other parts of the edit have merit in their own right and should be reinstated. The objection to the term "alleged" could have been simply rectified (by the deletion of the word, in two places) without purging all the other relevant and significant material. Enthusiast01 (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's not true to the sources, one of which states "Trump Shared Intelligence Secrets With Russians in Oval Office Meeting". They simply don't call it alleged and neither should we. I did not find the rest of your edit to be an improvement. "There was..." is not a good way to start an article. Your addition of "and other Russian staff were present, which allegedly included" adds trivial detail and, again, the word "allegedly" which tends to cast doubt where none is expressed in the body of sources. The rearrangement of the Israel comment may be OK, but it would help if you could explain how it's an improvement.- MrX 15:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I also suggest that at least the other parts of the edit have merit in their own right and should be reinstated. The objection to the term "alleged" could have been simply rectified (by the deletion of the word, in two places) without purging all the other relevant and significant material. Enthusiast01 (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)