My very best wishes (talk | contribs) →Specifics: re |
→Specifics: Russia collaborates with ISIL?? |
||
Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
:How ironic that the massive press coverage of this incident is leading to worldwide public disclosure of what was actually meant to remain confidential between governments, intel agencies and aviation security circles… People who leaked this are shooting themselves in the foot. Will Israel now condemn the US press? <popcorn> — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 10:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC) |
:How ironic that the massive press coverage of this incident is leading to worldwide public disclosure of what was actually meant to remain confidential between governments, intel agencies and aviation security circles… People who leaked this are shooting themselves in the foot. Will Israel now condemn the US press? <popcorn> — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 10:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
::<small>Of course not. Apparently, people in US government who initially leaked it to the press knew that Russian government collaborates closely with ISIL (some ISIL commanders are former Baathists), and therefore the disclosure had already happen at the moment of the meeting. Whatever happened later did not matter. And just to explain it, remember [[The Imitation Game]]? The first thing after deciphering the code was to hide from the Germans that the code was broken. Otherwise it would be useless. </small> [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC) |
::<small>Of course not. Apparently, people in US government who initially leaked it to the press knew that Russian government collaborates closely with ISIL (some ISIL commanders are former Baathists), and therefore the disclosure had already happen at the moment of the meeting. Whatever happened later did not matter. And just to explain it, remember [[The Imitation Game]]? The first thing after deciphering the code was to hide from the Germans that the code was broken. Otherwise it would be useless. </small> [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::<small>Russia collaborates with ISIL?? (Sorry not forum but this sounds weird.)</small> — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:46, 17 May 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Approval ratings
A section of the article is about President Trump's various approval ratings through his presidency. How long should this section become? The section could become a massive list of polling of over year. I believe this would not be beneficial to the article. There should guidelines as to how much polling should be referenced. Otherwise, this section could become trivial. SMP0328. (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- We should probably keep it to between one and three paragraphs (anything more would be undue). So us editors will probably have to delete or summarize more concisely some of the information currently on the page as his presidency continues. Orser67 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017
During the campaign, Trump stated his support for British voters voting to leave the European Union[107] In an interview with Piers Morgan in May 2016, Trump said that UK withdrawal would make no difference to a potential bilateral trade deal between the United Kingdom and the United States if he became president.[108]
On January 27, 2017 Trump met with British Prime Minister Theresa May, the first foreign leader to visit him at the White House. In the meeting Trump reiterated his support for both countries' involvement in NATO.[23] 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)OhDear (talk)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Russian connections
I recently posted a statement that said the intelligence community had no proof that Russia intervened in the U.S. Election yet it was removed. I'd like a discussion and reach a compromise that could retain at least part of the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfoster99 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- The criticism of your edit is that it does not include a reliable source. Why do you think the source you included with your edit is reliable? SMP0328. (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you google search "CommonDreams.Org" it says it is a progressive website. This isn't from a right-wing source like Fox or left-wing like CNN. I believe this is a fair source, as the CIA hasn't brought forth any actual evidence. There's no grounds that anything mentioned was incorrect, and it is not in good faith to revert the ideas of an editor when it is not propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:200:8E1:4D4A:FDBE:FE14:6523 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- That doesn't make it a reliable source though. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you google search "CommonDreams.Org" it says it is a progressive website. This isn't from a right-wing source like Fox or left-wing like CNN. I believe this is a fair source, as the CIA hasn't brought forth any actual evidence. There's no grounds that anything mentioned was incorrect, and it is not in good faith to revert the ideas of an editor when it is not propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:200:8E1:4D4A:FDBE:FE14:6523 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This source is reliable, as it is not specifically pro or anti Trump. Additionally, how is CommonDreams not reliable yet CNN can be used for Anti-Trump facts?2601:483:200:8E1:ACDD:BFCF:D383:A5DA (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)RDF
- The appropriate venue to discuss sources is WP:RS/N; I would recommend opening a discussion there. — JFG talk 09:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Ryanfoster99: For the avoidance of doubt, you should not take this to RS/N due to your topic ban.[1] Your ongoing involvement in this issue should be strictly limited to appealing the ban either through the appeals process or directly with the administrator who imposed the ban. JFG's advice is good and well within policies and guidelines, but it does not negate or override the topic ban. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
New section on authoritarian tendencies
I have started a new section on Trump's authoritarian tendencies. It is hard to write such a section and make it neutral, but I trust that other editors will be able to improve the section in this respect. I feel a section like this is necessary as this is a distinguishing and notable part of Trump's presidency. Any comments on making this section work are most welcomed Mozzie (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not only it is questionable to add such a statement in this manner and this stage into the article; and "authoritarian tendencies" obviously is already some kind of statement. It also appears to have weak and incoherent reasonings. It is one fact that critics of his persona or administration view certain actions negatively, however it is another thing what it actually has to stand for. Meeting with or inviting world leaders who previously were critizised by human rights groups is nothing new, neither to previous US presidents nor to other western leaders. Also "not shaking someone's hand" is no actual point to underline such a claim as given in the section. --Joobo (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at the section and sources, this section should not exist as far as I can tell. For example the constitution part, that was about the rules of congress not the constitution. The first sources for that even says as much in the headline. For the 9th circuit part the source listed makes no mention of wanting to break up the court. As stated above, world leaders meeting with each other is not support for that leader. I am also completely lost as to what shaking Merkel's hand has to do with anything at all. So basically its WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, and maybe even a WP:BLP violation, not sure on that one though. PackMecEng (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- NPOV can be addressed by balancing the content using reliable sources and is not grounds for immediate removal as per WP:WORKINPROGRESS. WP:SYNTH is adding extra meaning beyond sources and can be avoided with careful editing. WP:COATRACK is explicitly an article that is used as a vehicle for discussing content on another topic. Since this section discusses what it says it discusses, this is not relevant in this situation. WP:BLP refers to the immediate removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information. Since this article has reliable sources (Volunteer Marek has added more) it is outside the scope of this policy.Mozzie (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have removed this section. It clearly violates NPOV. The section title (authoritarian tendencies) shows that the section was meant to express the opinion of the editor who added it. BLP articles have to be closely watched to avoid painting the person in an overly positive or negative light. The section at issue failed all of the standards mentioned in the my comment, along with those of Joobo and PackMecEng. SMP0328. (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- What matters is whether this is discussed in reliable sources. And it is. Indeed, a lot more could be added. The section was perfectly fine, and you just violated 1RR on this article. The section DID NOT "express the opinion of the author who posted it" but rather reflected information as found in reliable sources. "I don't like what reliable sources say" doesn't count as an argument on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- In response to this edit summary - if the text accurately reflects sources, and these are reliable sources, then "sources" and "NPOV" are the same exact issue. Because that's how we determine what is NPOV or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- (the not shaking Merkel thing though probably should be dropped though).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- The material at issue violates multiple policies, regardless of sourcing. Just because material is sourced does not mean that material can be put into an article. If this material is restored to the article, other editors should remove it; I can't, because I would be accused of edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- How? An assertion is not an argument. You can't just same "it violates policies!" without actually explaining how and why it violates policies especially if it's very well sourced, and it is. Also, you've already violated 1RR so you're already edit warring - and you really need to self revert. Additionally calling on other editors to revert on your behalf can be seen as a form of disruptive WP:GAMEing and is also sanctionable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- The material at issue violates multiple policies, regardless of sourcing. Just because material is sourced does not mean that material can be put into an article. If this material is restored to the article, other editors should remove it; I can't, because I would be accused of edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) Here is a ton of other reliable sources on the subject [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and on and on and on and on... Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- See the comments of Joobo and PackMecEng, together with mine, for a full explanation of why this material does not belong in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah those comments don't really address the issue. Joobo's comment is basically a criticism of sources. But that's not our job. We don't analyze and interpret what reliable sources say. That's WP:OR and it basically amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. PackMecEng's comment address a couple particulars in terms of how sources and text connect but these are actually minor points and not a reason to remove the section. Tweak the wording? Yes. But not remove this wholesale. And like I said, your comment makes a claim but completely fails to back it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I critizise two points. One is the way this content is included here. It is portrayed, without prior evaluation, as it would be a clear fact even needing immediately its own section. The other point is about the sources. One simply cannot take plenty of incoherent sources of vague critic regarding the way a president acts and include it as a form of reality here. Important point to mention, in many if not most sources there is merely a "what could this all lead to" frame. Such personal outlooks are definitely no ground for creating such a section just like that. The bottom line is, critic or concern on actions by an acting president is one thing. It is also nothing new or extraordinary. However, portraying this as some form of reality something else and would be NPOV.--Joobo (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- "It is portrayed,without prior evaluation, as it would be a clear fact even needing immediately its own section" <- I have no idea what this means. Specifically what do you mean by "evaluation"? We do not evaluate what reliable sources state.
- "incoherent sources of vague critic" <-- No, there's nothing "incoherent" about what these sources state. And these are not "vague critic" but reliable sources.
- Look. At the end of the day, this is something that's widely discussed in reliable sources. The original text had four or five. I provided another half a dozen. It's notable. It's reliable. You might quibble with some of the wording but such a section should definitely be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- In addition to the other grounds already given, the material at issue would constitute a criticism section. Such a section is greatly discouraged, especially in a BLP. SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- That means it would be undue in the main Donald Trump article. But this is obviously very relevant to the assessment of his presidency so it fits in perfectly here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- A criticism section is greatly discouraged in any article, not just in BLPs. SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- To quote the relevant policies directly: Wikipedia:Criticism states that most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. In regards to criticism sections it states that best practice [to avoid criticism sections] is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. In this case the solution is to incorporate positive material into the section, not to remove the section. WP:BLP is summarized in WP:BLPZEAL as meaning Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In other words, BLP is about the immediate removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information. Since this section had reliable sources from reliable, non tabloid news organisations, it clearly does not violate this policy. WP:BLP goes on to state that In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. This is very clear - negative information belongs in the article, even if it is unfavorable.Mozzie (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- A criticism section is greatly discouraged in any article, not just in BLPs. SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- That means it would be undue in the main Donald Trump article. But this is obviously very relevant to the assessment of his presidency so it fits in perfectly here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- In addition to the other grounds already given, the material at issue would constitute a criticism section. Such a section is greatly discouraged, especially in a BLP. SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I critizise two points. One is the way this content is included here. It is portrayed, without prior evaluation, as it would be a clear fact even needing immediately its own section. The other point is about the sources. One simply cannot take plenty of incoherent sources of vague critic regarding the way a president acts and include it as a form of reality here. Important point to mention, in many if not most sources there is merely a "what could this all lead to" frame. Such personal outlooks are definitely no ground for creating such a section just like that. The bottom line is, critic or concern on actions by an acting president is one thing. It is also nothing new or extraordinary. However, portraying this as some form of reality something else and would be NPOV.--Joobo (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah those comments don't really address the issue. Joobo's comment is basically a criticism of sources. But that's not our job. We don't analyze and interpret what reliable sources say. That's WP:OR and it basically amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. PackMecEng's comment address a couple particulars in terms of how sources and text connect but these are actually minor points and not a reason to remove the section. Tweak the wording? Yes. But not remove this wholesale. And like I said, your comment makes a claim but completely fails to back it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- See the comments of Joobo and PackMecEng, together with mine, for a full explanation of why this material does not belong in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I mean, seriously, we have at least a dozen reliable sources on the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are policies other than IRS, any one which can prevent material from being in an article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Uh, such as? Seriously, can you please stop making these vague assertions and start backing up what you actually claim. It's hard to respond to things like "there are policies".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
A section on authoritarian tendencies is absolutely valid. If you give the go-ahead, I have a billion RS to add in addition to the sources cited above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is neither valid nor do "a billion RS" of such kind make it valid. Obvious reasons given above. --Joobo (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- The reasons are not so obvious. The reasons have to address two aspects - reliability and notability. Is it covered in reliable sources? Yes. Is it covered in multiple reliable sources to establish notability? Yes. That's really all there is to this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to me that sources calling Trump authoritarian are just opinions, and a lot of them are speculative to boot ("what might go wrong if he turns authoritarian"). Not much to justify encyclopedic inclusion. — JFG talk 03:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- If these are notable opinions discussed in many sources, we still include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
This material is very extensively and very seriously covered in reliable sources, and therefore clearly a discussion of this topic should be included in the article. The proposed section looks fine to me. For example, the article on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (who is way less extreme than Trump) includes extensive discussion of authoritarian policies, with several sections on topics such as "Intimidation of the Constitutional Court", "Silencing the press" and more. --Tataral (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Erdogan "way less extreme" than Trump??? In which alternate reality do you live? Has Trump purged 160,000 people from the armed forces, the judiciary and the administration? Has he thrown any journalists or political opponents in jail? Is he waging a war against a significant part of his own country's population? Is he cracking down on universities? Is he changing the constitution to wield full power? These are all exploits of Mr. Erdogan; in comparison the worst that Trump has done is trash talk on Twitter… — JFG talk 20:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- This is a red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The US has a more robust democracy than Turkey, so Trump hasn't been able to do anything like that. But his beliefs, based on what he himself has said, are quite extreme, and certainly more extreme than anything Erdoğan has said. Anyway, this isn't really the point. The point is that articles on other controversial leaders with authoritarian tendencies include discussion of those tendencies. And Trump has been very explicit about his contempt for the press, for example, or his fondness for other authoritarian views, policies and people. --Tataral (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- That is nothing but pure POV. And this is not going to happen. If you start by that you could include hundreds of similar sections in this article. Not only in this one but basically in all articles of presidencies. Just look for couple of "reliable sources" and you will surely find to every single US President similar "relieble sources " aka opinions and/or subjective outlooks. Already the word "tendecies" is nothing but pure indeterminableness.--Joobo (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Like I said, this is a red herring. Who cares about Erdogan? (As far as this article is concerned) And yeah, I looked for other presidents and sources for their "authoritarian tendencies" - guess what? Reliable sources of that nature do not exists. But they do for this one. So so much for your attempts at deflection and whatbaoutism. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- That is nothing but pure POV. And this is not going to happen. If you start by that you could include hundreds of similar sections in this article. Not only in this one but basically in all articles of presidencies. Just look for couple of "reliable sources" and you will surely find to every single US President similar "relieble sources " aka opinions and/or subjective outlooks. Already the word "tendecies" is nothing but pure indeterminableness.--Joobo (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Exactly there need to be reliable sources. But there simply are none, that is the point. Again, and now everyone should be able to understand this, none is arguing about the reliability of the sources if it comes to the question wether the content in the sources is accurate regarding details given and if it was meant that way it was writte. To that question the sources of course are reliable. Yet no such source can give evidence supporting the claim of "authoritarian tendencies". There simply is nothing authoritarian as for example (already taken here) in Turkey's politics and regarding its leader. That is also why fairly incoherent examples were used and had to be taken like the "not shaking so. hand" one. So even finding "a billion RS" will not do anything, as they are all of such sort. --Joobo (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Exactly there need to be reliable sources. But there simply are none, that is the point." <--- Uh, wha the fuj? Dude, people have given you a dozen reliable sources already. Stop trying to gaslight people. I'm sure we can find a couple dozen by end of tonight too. And you need to STOP EVALUATING sources according to your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Not your job. Pretty much the definition of POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states that News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. that is established outlets are considered to be reliable for statements of fact. This content was based on sources that are established news organisations with high journalistic standards. Once again, reliable further sources can be obtained.Mozzie (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
As the editor who originally created this section, I would like to focus your attention on Volunteer Marek's comments. This information is based on reliable sources that would not be questioned in other articles. It is also notable being covered in detail in many sources. Moreover, the significance of authoritarian tendencies in a US presidents, who are conventionally non-authoritarian makes this issue notable. Should this information be on Wikipedia? Absolutely! Is this section perfect? Absolutely not! The solution is not to remove the content, but to edit and improve it. I tried to make this clear in my original post above. If the title Authoritarian tendencies is inappropriate, change it to something more appropriate. It the section is non WP:NPOV, make it NPOV. (Note NPOV means representing fairly, etc... all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.) It there is a major misinterpretation of an issue fix it. If there is some minor, subtle error, fix it. It was not my duty as an editor to create perfect content because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Rather it is our duty to collectively improve Wikipedia over time. Mozzie (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have added that section as being disputed as to whether it violates NPOV. The tag should not be removed, until there is a consensus that there is no such violation or the section is removed. SMP0328. (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are no RS that supply evidence for that claim which is created already by the headline. Period. You can reiterate that over and over again and get the "billion reliable sources" but there are none. You still do not seem to understand the meaning of "reliable source". One just cannot take a couple of newspaper articles of opinions or outlooks and portray this as a "fact". Well, that is what is done here. Moreover the word "tendency" is absolute vague which makes it purely unsuitable for usage. It merely, if used in combination with a word of negative connotation, creates an unclear and general negative frame without any factual foundation. Tendency can mean anything. It merely helps to find equally incoherent and vague "sources". Otherwise one just needs to look for some "RS" aka a dozen of articles of personal outlook or subjective comprehension and voilà "XY tendencies" is born. That would go for any WP article of this kind. It is no problem at all to find dozens of sources which then support the claim of "socialist tendencies" for Obama's presidency. That is a "evaluation" itself putting these articles in a certain frame of opinion when there is no ground for that. --Joobo (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Joobo, yes, there freakin' are. Half a dozen have been provided. YOU don't understand the meaning of "reliable source". Yes, newspaper articles are reliable sources, provided these are respectable newspapers. Yes, opinion pieces ARE reliable sources for the opinion of the author - the only question is whether this opinion is notable. Which since, you know, there's a dozen sources there, and these are law profs and the like, they freakin' are. Stop making up lame excuses. In some of these instances, the text should be attributed, but yes, these are "facts". Hell, they're facts without the quotation marks too. Please re-read: WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Several editors here have tried to explain this to you.
- And you're also trying the "whataboutism" with this "socialist tendencies" nonsense, just like you tried the "authoritarian tendencies for other presidents" right above. There are no reliable sources for "socialist tendencies" for Obama AFAIK, just like there's no sources for "authoritarian tendencies" for Bill Clinton or George Bush or Gerald Ford etc. If I'm wrong go ahead and present them at the Obama article or other relevant articles. Otherwise, quit making random and irrelevant shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am not even going into detail again, since there still seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what reliability of sources means if it comes to usage of such in the context of creating sections as this. There are no reliable sources for a "socialist tendencies" section on Obama's article? According to my understanding no, according to your understanding yes, there are "reliable sources" for an inclusion of such section. --Joobo (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, no, you NEED to go into detail, especially since you haven't so far. So far you just asserted that "there are no reliable sources" despite the fact that a dozen or so have been provided for you.
- What is this misunderstanding you're talking about? Are the sources being cited reliable or not? It's not a hard question and I have no idea what you're going on about "comes to usage of such in the context of creating sections as this". What the hey does that even mean? You are simply evading the straight forward issue that there are indeed reliable sources here by writing some confusing and obtuse sentences.
- Likewise, I still have no idea of what you are going on about with Obama and these "socialist tendencies". You claimed there were reliable sources for THAT. There ain't. So stop making crap up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I clearly explain why these sources simply cannot be labeled as "reliable" and automatically be used as a free ticket to include sections of such kind in this article. Please try to read my comments carefully and agf. Also try to understand the aspects regarding the headline using "tendecies". I am quite amazed that you are so confident that there were no RS for a section in the article of Obama. In fact there are plenty of, using the same standards and criterias as applied here by you. --Joobo (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- No you do not. Explain why The Atlantic is an unreliable source. Explain why Los Angeles Times is an unreliable source. Explain why CNN is an unreliable source. Explain why The Guardian is an unreliable source. Explain why Washington Post is an unreliable source. Explain why New York Times is an unreliable source. You only asserted these were unreliable (which is BS, frankly). Just like you are only asserting, also falsely, that there are "reliable sources about Obama's authoritarian tendencies" - still waiting on you to provide these reliable sources which you claim exist, never mind that that's a complete red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I clearly explain why these sources simply cannot be labeled as "reliable" and automatically be used as a free ticket to include sections of such kind in this article. Please try to read my comments carefully and agf. Also try to understand the aspects regarding the headline using "tendecies". I am quite amazed that you are so confident that there were no RS for a section in the article of Obama. In fact there are plenty of, using the same standards and criterias as applied here by you. --Joobo (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am not even going into detail again, since there still seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what reliability of sources means if it comes to usage of such in the context of creating sections as this. There are no reliable sources for a "socialist tendencies" section on Obama's article? According to my understanding no, according to your understanding yes, there are "reliable sources" for an inclusion of such section. --Joobo (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Joobo - re this - there's nothing "OR" about this text. It's based on reliable sources. You are just quoting random Wikipedia policies to justify your edit warring according to your own personal WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. THAT is POV.
SMP0328 - as stated repeatedly, it is not enough to *claim* that something is POV. You have to justify and explain exactly how it is "POV". An assertion is not an argument. It's meaningless. Such a tag does not belong in the section unless you can provide a non-spurious rationale for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- The disputed section has been restored, so I have added tags for it being POV and a criticism section. The section is clearly biased, as it contains only negative material. Not one positive thing is said about Trump. This section is clearly a criticism section, as is indicated by its title (Authoritarian tendencies). Criticism sections are greatly discouraged as they can cause an article to be POV. Both of these issues are despite the material being fully sourced. The tags I have added should not be removed, until the section is removed or there is a consensus that these tags no longer apply to this section. SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- To add tags you have to justify them. You cannot just "tag shame" a section because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You haven't done that. Criticism sections are NOT automatically NPOV and this isn't even a "criticism section" it's more like an "analysis" section. So until you actually make an attempt at justifying these tags, they go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
To add my two cents, I think that what's currently on the page is a bit thin to justify a section such as "authoritarian tendencies." When you label a section with a title like "authoritarian tendencies," you're making a pretty strong statement, and all I see to support the section title are a bunch of statements and opinions rather than actions. Many of the articles being cited also don't themselves make a point about authoritarian tendencies, which raises a wp:synthesis issue. The lack of opinions/statements arguing against his supposed authoritarian tendencies is also a problem. Orser67 (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have added two references that clearly call Trump authoritarian: "Trump’s Authoritarian Vision" and "Trump is following the authoritarian playbook" I do not see a problem with the sections title. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- If these are truly "reliabe sources" the same could be done for Obama's presidency article with a "socialist tendencies" subsection. Or basically for any other presidency article in the manner of " XXX tendencies". --Joobo (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Janweh64 The CNN source is an opinion article and not suitable. Even stating at the top that these are the opinions solely of the author. They are not employed by CNN and have no editorial oversight. I suggest you remove it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: Done —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joobo: Please provide links to your sources. Because, you are wrong:
- But you are welcome to bring the issue up at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- The point seems to be missed here, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comes to mind. The comparison with Obama appears to be pointing out how silly the section is, not trying to make changed to the Obama article. Overall it is very thin in several areas. "He attacked courts which made rulings against his executive orders." is the same that every president has done when their orders have been struck down, with the source listed saying nothing about authoritarianism. The part on breaking up the 9th circuit court is not mentioned in the source anywhere so it is WP:OR. The first amendment claim is not stated by the source either, rather saying it would require a change to the constitution, not that he wants to limit the first amendment. The hand shake with Merkel is completely irrelevant to the section. So with just that first look alone half the section is worthless and just looking like a WP:COATRACK, couple that with no balance what so ever and it comes off WP:NPOV and possibly a BLP issue. PackMecEng (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Janweh64 The CNN source is an opinion article and not suitable. Even stating at the top that these are the opinions solely of the author. They are not employed by CNN and have no editorial oversight. I suggest you remove it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- If these are truly "reliabe sources" the same could be done for Obama's presidency article with a "socialist tendencies" subsection. Or basically for any other presidency article in the manner of " XXX tendencies". --Joobo (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you are saying. Let's take it one sentence at a time:
- "attacked courts": is covered in --"Trump’s Authoritarian Vision" (which I have added.)
- "breaking up the 9th circuit court": is discussed in this new reference Vanity Fair: "Trump Threatens To Smash The Ninth Circuit For Ruling Against Him: The president’s authoritarian streak is showing."
- "libel laws": rewritten, please comment on new version.
- "hand shake with Merkel": Deleted —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
User: SMP0328., Re this revert. That's not how this works. You don't get to "tag shame" a section because you just don't like it and then demand "consensus" for removal of these spurious bullshit tags. YOU need to articulate and explain what is POV about that section. Specifically. Sentence, word, source. Not just some vague "oh it just looks POV to me" crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have explained why I added those tags to the disputed section, as have other editors. I am not trying to shame anything or anyone. The disputed section violates multiple policies, regardless of the sourcing. Regardless of the arguments many editors, including myself, have made, you continue to simply restate that the disputed section is reliably sourced and that we have not explained ourselves. We have explained ourselves and sourcing is not at issue. There are numerous policies under which Wikipedia is run; IRS is not the only Wikipedia policy. SMP0328. (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- No! No no no you haven't. You've only ASSERTED. You have NOT EXPLAINED. Look, it's not that hard to understand. "To assert" and "to explain" are two different things. You did the former. You need to do the latter. What exactly is POV? Which sentence? Which wording? Which sources are unreliable? The policy requires you to be specific. And seriously, claims like "disputed section violates multiple policies, regardless of the sourcing" sort of indicate that you got nothing, which is why you keep making these vague, ethereal, substance free, empty, rhetorical, inane, objections. And yes, until you actually explain, the tags don't belong in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Here are the previous interactions with you:
"The material at issue violates multiple policies, regardless of sourcing. Just because material is sourced does not mean that material can be put into an article. If this material is restored to the article, other editors should remove it; I can't, because I would be accused of edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC) How? An assertion is not an argument. You can't just same "it violates policies!" without actually explaining how and why it violates policies especially if it's very well sourced, and it is. Also, you've already violated 1RR so you're already edit warring - and you really need to self revert. Additionally calling on other editors to revert on your behalf can be seen as a form of disruptive WP:GAMEing and is also sanctionable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)" - NO FOLLOW UP ANSWER
"There are policies other than IRS, any one which can prevent material from being in an article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Uh, such as? Seriously, can you please stop making these vague assertions and start backing up what you actually claim. It's hard to respond to things like "there are policies".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)" - NO FOLLOW UP ANSWER
"A criticism section is greatly discouraged in any article, not just in BLPs. SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC) To quote the relevant policies directly: Wikipedia:Criticism states that most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way...." - NO FOLLOW UP ANSWER
The above clearly shows that you are only ASSERTING that the section violates policies, but when you are asked to actually explain how policies are violated you completely, utterly, and absolutely FAIL to respond. That is a quintessential example of spurious "tag shaming" and of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You need to do better or tags go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: Please stop worrying. Trust the system. Let fucking stupid tags stay for a bit while the RfC below attracts more reasonable minds. In the mean time, I have completed a good rewrite to make the section quite strong and balanced. We can take the tags down once more people express their opinions. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears more and more that there is an unbalanced approach to this matter. So "I am wrong" if i suggest one could include a similar section in the article of Obama, simply because you looked up some articles in which the authors disagree with the claim of socialist tendencies of Obama's presidency — and hence there automatically cannot be socialist tendencies? That is a genuinely interesting statement. I like to point out that there are sources as well disagreeing with the claim of an authoritarian Trump presidency. So what sources are "reliable" now and what are not; - as already pointed out here by me clearly, either one applies this "reliable source" using and creating of new "tendencies" subsection to all US presidency articles or one stays straight to the way it was. --Joobo (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Provide links and I will apply them to the article. I have renamed the section "Accusations of authoritarianism." —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Jooboo, you're wrong because you made a silly assertion, which was a red herring anyway, and then have become evasive when asked to back it up. Where are these reliable sources which state that Obama had "socialist tendencies"? Still waiting on them. But anyway, like I said, it's actually irrelevant. What is relevant is these sources - again, you claim they exist but fail to provide them - that "disagree with the claim of an authoritarian Trump presidency". So let's see'em.
- Criteria for reliability can be found at WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- What does "socialist tendences" mean? The way the American far right uses the term "socialist", it seems that they mean mainstream conservatives – as we understand the term conservatives in the non-Bizarro Universe. By normal standards Obama is a centre-right politician, like Merkel. There is very little if anything about him or his policies that is "socialist" as the term is used in serious contexts. In fact most European conservatives are probably more "socialist" than Obama. Clearly, the serious description of Trump's policies as authoritarian by political scientists and other serious sources cannot be compared to nutty rants from far-right non-reliable sources about Obama being a "socialist." --Tataral (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- The point is not whether Obama is a socialist. The point is that such a section in Presidency of Barack Obama would be inappropriate, even if there were numerous reliable sources claiming that Obama is a socialist. The same is true regarding the disputed section in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @SMP0328., Tataral, Volunteer Marek, Joobo, Mozzie, JFG, Snooganssnoogans, and PackMecEng:
- Please continue to discuss here but !vote below at RfC section. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- The point is not whether Obama is a socialist. The point is that such a section in Presidency of Barack Obama would be inappropriate, even if there were numerous reliable sources claiming that Obama is a socialist. The same is true regarding the disputed section in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, a fringe POV section like "some people with extreme views and who don't have a clue about politics and who aren't considered serious reliable sources call Obama a socialist" is not comparable to a section discussing the very serious views from very serious reliable sources about Trump's authoritarianism. The key issue here is that the latter is a serious discussion based on serious reliable sources, while the former is not. --Tataral (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
New section on controversies
I am Writing to seek ideas and consensus on a section on controversies. there is scope for subsections on ethical issues, his potential and unknown Russia links, and his authoritarianism. Each of these topics has sufficient reliable sources to support it. I think it is common sense to group these topics together. However, WP:CRIT states that controversies sections should be avoided. Is there an alternative name? Is this an exception where controversies should be used? Should each topic have its own level 2 heading to avoid a controversies section? Mozzie (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Mozzie: With all due respect to your efforts, I would advise you to read WP:TEND and WP:BALASP before embarking on such a mission. Editing purely to highlight the negative aspects of a subject is not the goal of the encyclopedia. For that matter, neither would be editing to highlight only positive aspects. The subject here being Trump's presidency, we must collectively strive to present both positive and negative aspects, in proportion to their weight in reliable sources. — JFG talk 11:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think we should just keep them, regardless of what the MOS says. They're a major part of his presidency and they belong on the page. We just have to try extra hard to handle them in a balanced way. Orser67 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Possible POV of §Authoritarian tendencies
- Does this section abide by WP:NPOV and WP:BLP?
- Are the tags {{POV section}} and {{Criticism}} justified?
Please review comments at above 2 discussions, especially Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#New section on authoritarian tendencies. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- NPOV concerns are justified - After glancing at this section, I think the content may be OK, but the way the content is presented is probably not. I don't think this should be its own section, and the section title is not appropriate. Ideally this section would be moved to a subsection called "Presidential authority" under the Domestic Policy subsection. NickCT (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Concerns NOT justified - There is frequent and persistent use of the term "Authoritarian" to describe Trump: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. I have also renamed the section Accusations of authoritarianism —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
* Support – Trump is literally Hitler reincarnate. Ever compared his birth date with Hitler's suicide? — JFG talk 03:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Was I being sarcastic or dead serious? Dear reader, you be the judge. — JFG talk 03:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- May I remind you that Trump is a BLP. To liken him to a foul, racist, murderous dictator who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, is pretty disgusting. Your unfunny view has the potential to upset a large amount of people who are still affected by the aftermath of what Hitler did, but who also support Trump. What could be conceived from this is that you also believe that those who support him also support the idea of mass genocide and hate. I'll give you a chance to alter your comment first before I do. CassiantoTalk 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Cassianto: I was obviously making fun of the constant smearing of Donald Trump, who happens to be the legitimately elected president of the USA. Those who call him authoritarian inform their readers and listeners more about their own state of mind than about his. Comment stricken. — JFG talk 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – This section is a highly POV collection of innuendo and overblown fearmongering. Sources calling Trump authoritarian are just opinions, and a lot of them are speculative to boot ("what might go wrong if he turns authoritarian"), hence not encyclopedic. Not everything the press prints is fit for Wikipedia. We have core policies against this: NPOV, BLP, UNDUE, INDISCRIMINATE, et al. Or how about basic decency and respect for the office? — JFG talk 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wasn't aware that "respect for the office" is a Wikipedia policy. Anyway, have you considered that it is precisely "basic decency and respect for the office" (as opposed the person in it) that motivates the scholars and analysts to write these analyses? Unlike... nevermind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- POV and criticism - and really WP:OFFTOPIC because the section is not describing his presidential actions and policies, it's just giving a WP:SOAPBOX space to outside opinions or criticism or politically-motivated posturing WP:POV. I'll point out the precedent in describing all other presidencies (see Category:United States presidential administrations) is about factually describing the domestic and foreign policies and major events. Delete the section. Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- "the section is not describing his presidential actions and policies", no that's actually precisely what the section does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Undue. The language isn't terrible, but this is terribly undue emphasis. There are so, so many heavily covered aspects to the Trump presidency and so, so many different heavily covered criticisms. Why does this one get a top-level section while other aspects (say, his dishonesty, his divisiveness, his temperament) don't their own sections anywhere? This content belongs in Public image of Donald Trump, similar to Public image of Barack Obama. Limited bits and pieces of this content might belong in Presidency of Donald Trump#Foreign Policy as well. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Undue, WP:Synth, and the tags are justified. Per my previous comment under "new section on authoritarian tendencies." Orser67 (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Section is fine. It's well sourced, the sources are reliable, the sources are notable and not a single person has been able to articulate what exactly is "POV" or "SYNTH" about it. An assertion is not an argument. Neither is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Back up your statements or stop wasting people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- NPOV concerns are justified — As becoming obvious after consideration this section is not appropriate in this way. It is based mostly on opinions and or outlooks. Content of such kind, in case there is a need for it, should be included as suggested by Dr. Fleischman. Keeping a system in the editing of articles of the same kind is key. --Joobo (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The section is perfectly neutral and given due weight (in fact it should probably be given even more weight). This is an extremely important aspect of Trump's rule, closely related to all the other scandals that have engulfed the US government in chaos since he assumed the office, and it is extensively covered in reliable sources. The complaining about it from certain editors here is just about WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Tataral (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Trump revealed highly classified information to Russians
The Washington Post is reporting that "President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State."[20] This seems to be worthy of inclusion in this article. Other sources as well: [21][22][23][24]-
An editor added this information to the article and was promptly reverted. Let's discuss whether we should add this information to the body of the article, and whether it should be summarized in the lead.- MrX 23:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Should be added and summarized in the lead. I reverted but I will place what is now in the led in the body.Casprings (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- See this policy. An article's Introduction is for summarizing the article, not for providing material not in the body of the article. This story belongs not in the Introduction, but in the body of the article. Also, that material must be provided in a balanced fashion. This means that it must be clear that this is an allegation against the Trump administration, not a proven fact. It also means that such material must include that the Trump administration has denied the allegation.[25] SMP0328. (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I’d wait a day or so. Coverage is heavy at the moment and we need more official responses, which have thus far been weak. WP:NOTNEWS Objective3000 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wish we could show such restraint, but I doubt we will in this case.
In before Donald Trump revelation of highly classified information to Russians is created.- MrX 00:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wish we could show such restraint, but I doubt we will in this case.
- I’d wait a day or so. Coverage is heavy at the moment and we need more official responses, which have thus far been weak. WP:NOTNEWS Objective3000 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
An article was already created on this subject alone Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia? Dang that was fast. So first off, if the president says information, it is not a leak, it is him sharing information. The part about the american press being denied entry vs russian press being allowed is not relevant to this incident since it was not discussed in front of the press. Which for some reason is implied by "Donald Trump revealed to them highly classified information regarding ISIS" in our section, but is not mentioned in the Washington Post. Where we says if anyone else had done it, it would be illegal some mention of the post saying "As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law." which is what i mentioned in my first point. Where it says "The story was confirmed by two additional sources to Buzzfeed" it makes it sound like Buzzfeed and another source confirmed it. Not that another two random anonymous sources told just Buzzfeed, that should be written more clearly. Lastly balance should be added in that the national security adviser, who was in the meeting, said it was just reviewing common threats from ISIS and that the Washington Post article was false. Nothing about intelligence sources, methods, or military operations were discussed according to him. Seem about right? PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Casprings, VM's addition was challenged [26] by revision from SMP0328 and under WP:ARBAPDS must be left out until concensus is reached on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- They got rid of that requirement because it was too confusing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- No: the restriction was only lifted on the Russian interference article, it's still active here. Whoever reinstated a challenged edit should self-revert. (I'm not touching it.) — JFG talk 03:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's right at the top of this talk page. Still in place on this article. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- They got rid of that requirement because it was too confusing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think this a highly notable new development, and it should be prominently included. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, deserves inclusion, with the usual attributions and denial. Funny that no article names the "Middle-Eastern ally" whose "sources and methods" were allegedly jeopardized. I'm sure we'll learn more over the next few days, especially as Trump visits several allies in the region… — JFG talk 03:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is an extremely notable event that needs to be included and summarized in the lead in this article, and also at the very least mentioned in the main biography (Donald Trump). --Tataral (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not lead-worthy unless it becomes a full-blown diplomatic incident or leads to serious consequences. So far, the only impact is on pro-Trump / anti-Trump political chatter. To your other point, the incident is already mentioned at length in Donald Trump#Revelation of classified information to Russia. — JFG talk 19:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh for fuck's sake, of course it's lede worthy - hell it would've been the biggest thing in his presidency so far... except, you know, Comey memos. Now it's gonna be a toss up between those two.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Section title
[27]. The sources don't say "alleged". So neither do we. See also WP:ALLEGED.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Seriously User:SMP0328. stop it with the WP:POV WP:WEASELing of the article [28]. The sources. Don't. Say. "Alleged". Neither do we. Also, you already broke 1RR on this article once today, you might consider stepping back for awhile.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- So if a reliable source reports on Person-A accusing Person-B of murder, we should treat Person-B as being a murderer? Of course not. Person-A has made an allegation, not stated a fact. The same is true here. The Washington Post has reported on an allegation made against President Trump. The Post does not know what Trump really did and neither do we. This is breaking news. As the days go by, this story will continue to unfold. If it is proven that Trump revealed classified data to the Russians, we should put that in this article. For now, let's not get ahead of the story. SMP0328. (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- If the source does not say "Person A alleged Person B murdered someone" but rather says "according to Person A Person B murdered someone" then yeah, we would not use "alleged". One more time - and please pay attention - see WP:ALLEGED. We base our articles on SECONDARY SOURCES. We do NOT interpret these sources or evaluate the "truth" of what they write. That's WP:OR. So if the sources don't say "alleged" we don't either. We only need to attribute it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- If we write it as fact, we are committing synthesis. If you don't like the word "allegation", then provide another word that makes it clear that someone is claiming something to be true, but that it has not been confirmed to be true. SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- No we are not committing synthesis (that's a new one - you're about to run out of random Wikipedia policies to claim support you, as each one is shown to be irrelevant). What is suppose to be "confirmed to be true"? That certain scholars believe Trump has "authoritarian tendencies"? That has been confirmed and verified, per WP:V.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- If we write it as fact, we are committing synthesis. If you don't like the word "allegation", then provide another word that makes it clear that someone is claiming something to be true, but that it has not been confirmed to be true. SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- If the source does not say "Person A alleged Person B murdered someone" but rather says "according to Person A Person B murdered someone" then yeah, we would not use "alleged". One more time - and please pay attention - see WP:ALLEGED. We base our articles on SECONDARY SOURCES. We do NOT interpret these sources or evaluate the "truth" of what they write. That's WP:OR. So if the sources don't say "alleged" we don't either. We only need to attribute it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Trump admits to it contradicting his own spokespeople
Re [29] - that's not a mischaracterization of the source, although this source says the same thing more explicitly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- He said about the meeting that he had every right to share "facts" about terrorism with Russia. He did not tell that the "facts" were something secret. Was it actually a confirmation? I do not know, but these sources interpret his words as a confirmation. Maybe that's because he could tell them only something they did not know (secret information). My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The New York Times appears to contradict the perceived contradiction:
"But he did not precisely address reports from multiple news outlets that he had disclosed highly classified information to the Russian officials, possibly jeopardizing a relationship with an intelligence-sharing ally."
[30] Politrukki (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The New York Times appears to contradict the perceived contradiction:
- Oh, yes it was. The cited source has significantly changed, so it would safe to guess that we didn't read the same version of the source. Just one more reason why we shouldn't use breaking news sources.
- When the content was added (or at least when I first read the source), The Hill piece, written by Rebecca Savransky, consisted of just seven paragraphs and two Trump tweets. The original version did not provide analysis of the tweets and it absolutely did not say in the The Hill's editorial voice that Trump confirmed the reporting. This piece has since been updated – and is credited to different author – and yes, it is true that
"Trump appeared to confirm the Washington Post report"
is supported by the new version. Politrukki (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Specifics
There is now some specific information about the leak. According to NYT, that was top secret intelligence from Israel [31], and according to Israeli sources, such as Debkafile, this is the existence of a signal intelligence technology, "one of Israel’s most closely guarded intelligence secrets" [32]. This should probably be included on this page, Donald Trump revelation of classified information to Russia and even on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. So, according to D. Trump and McMaster, it was OK to disclose this secret information [33]. This is hard to believe. I am not sure if there are any other historical analogies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- How ironic that the massive press coverage of this incident is leading to worldwide public disclosure of what was actually meant to remain confidential between governments, intel agencies and aviation security circles… People who leaked this are shooting themselves in the foot. Will Israel now condemn the US press? <popcorn> — JFG talk 10:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Of course not. Apparently, people in US government who initially leaked it to the press knew that Russian government collaborates closely with ISIL (some ISIL commanders are former Baathists), and therefore the disclosure had already happen at the moment of the meeting. Whatever happened later did not matter. And just to explain it, remember The Imitation Game? The first thing after deciphering the code was to hide from the Germans that the code was broken. Otherwise it would be useless. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)