Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

"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)

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&region=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)

Article's Name?

I think the name could be better. Any ideas?Casprings (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps /dev/null would be appropriate? — JFG talk 14:10, 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)

 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)
Done. --Smghz (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)smghz

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)

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)

I would support this idea by JFG as well. Sagecandor (talk) 15:56, 17 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)
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)

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)
My intention was to rearrange existing material into a more chronological order, and to move the detail out of the introduction to the body of the article. I also added some clarifications and new sourced material. As for the use of the term "alleged" perhaps "reportedly" is better. Enthusiast01 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with MrX, Casprings, and Neutrality, because described as such without use of the word in reliable sources, and per documented statements from the President and the White House from multiple sources. Sagecandor (talk) 18:56, 22 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)
Agreed. Right now, a lot of stories that are sourced to US intelligence or anonymous officials are being presented as fact here on Wikipedia. However, it's not just the presentation of allegations and speculation as fact that is troubling. The decision of what aspects of the subject to include, and how to phrase those aspects is also deeply problematic. Take, for example, the caption included below the photo in this article:
"President Trump meets with Lavrov (pictured) and Kislyak on May 10, 2017. American media was not allowed in the meeting; Russian media was." - [3]
The wording is clearly chosen to push a certain political view on the reader. This isn't particularly subtle. If these sorts of recent events each need their own page (and I don't think each mini-scandal needs one), they should be kept concise and stick to the point. The addition of these sorts of obviously political statements (like the caption) undermines Wikipedia's credibility as a neutral source of knowledge. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:51, 25 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)

the Manchester Bomber

We have a sentence in the lede about the US disclosing the identity and other details about the Manchester Bomber. But that information was not classified and was not disclosed by Trump, so does it really belong in an article called "Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia"? For that matter, should we either remove the bit about his giving classified information to the Philippine president, or change the title to remove "to Russia"? --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

We could create another article (e.g., Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Trump administration) and then have that be a broad-scope article that (1) summarizes/links this article and (2) discusses all the other blurting-out incidents. Neutralitytalk 01:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
How about Handling of classified information by post-Cold War U.S. administrations? That would allow greater context and perspective, with less recentism and partisanship. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd favor removing the two things I mentioned above from this article. If someone wants to start another article as suggested by Neutrality, with a link to this, and if there is enough information on additional incidents excluding this one, that's OK with me. An article that tries to handle every administration's handling of this kind of information over the past 70 years would be unwieldy, very difficult to research, and almost worthless as an article. If something thinks there is sufficient information for a comparable article in a specific administration, let them try it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The Cold War ended in 1991, which was much less than 70 years ago. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread it - was thinking it said post-war meaning WW II. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could simply change the title of this article to the title suggested by Neutrality. That would allow us to leave in the Philippines and Britain information, although the Trump-to-Russia incident would still dominate the article (which would be appropriate, since it received by far the most coverage). This would have the advantage of getting away from the current habit of creating a whole new separate article every time Trump says or does something. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Neutrality and Anythingyouwant: What do you think about this second suggestion? --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Covering the period 1992-2017 in one Wikipedia article seems the best option. That's a mere 25 years, and includes administrations of both parties. That would ensure more context and less partisanship. Limiting ourselves to those 25 years would also ensure that there were comparable worldwide circumstances. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there really any basis for such an article? I can't remember any previous president blurting out classified information, certainly not to the point of this massively covered major incident. Plus I can't think of any other subject that has a Wikipedia article organized in this manner. "Military actions by post-Cold War U.S. administrations"? "White House personnel policy in post-Cold War U.S. administrations"? "Handling of sexual abuse allegations in post-Cold War U.S. administrations"? It's an approach that really doesn't make sense IMO. Our usual approach is to handle each administration separately (e.g Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration, etc.) That's why I liked the suggestion by Neutrality. Feel free to write an article Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Barack Obama administration (and G.W. Bush, Clinton, etc.) if you feel one is justified. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is plenty of basis for such an article. For example, see Miller, Greg. "White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan", The Washington Post (May 25, 2014). Also see DeYoung, Karen. "U.S. offers to share Syria intelligence on terrorists with Russia", The Washington Post (June 30, 2016). Wikipedia has an article Post–Cold War era, and I think it helps to analyze some matters in that way, per WP:Other stuff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, good, that's two for your Obama administration article. As for "post-Cold War administrations", let's see if anyone else agrees. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't support an omnibus "post-Cold War presidents" article; that seems like it would be very unwieldy and essay-like. Neutralitytalk 22:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think it would be essay-like, User:Neutrality? And, User:MelanieN, I don't intent to write any separate articles about the other respective presidents' mistreatment of classified information. WP:NPOV would be much better served by treating them together and neutrally in a single article, not separately and differently in a variety of articles. I'm not even convinced that there is enough material for separate articles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
That's probably true; there may not be enough material for separate articles, except for the current administration. Look, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you want to write an article about the handling of information by a particular sequence of administrations, you don't need our permission. I agree with Neutrality that it would probably be an unwieldy article and difficult to research, but go ahead if you want; its suitability will be evaluated after it is written. In the meantime, Neutrality, what do you think about changing the title of this article to Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Donald Trump administration? Leaving a redirect of course. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
My recommendation is to change the scope of the present article to Handling of classified information by post-Cold War U.S. administrations. If it gets too big, then parts of it can be spun off. That's how Wikipedia usually works. This is not a big article now, and there is plenty of room to expand the narrow focus on Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
And that is a recommendation that I oppose. This article has already been to AfD and the result was "snow keep". This has been deemed by the community to be a subject worthy of its own article. Not to be diluted/back-door deleted by a few people (or one person) on the talk page. We have agreed to a slight broadening of the subject (which will take the focus off of Trump himself). That's as far as I am willing to go. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, I like the Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Donald Trump administration proposal idea. It will requiring broadening of the article, which I can help with. (There's no shortage of material: this article from a few days ago is something to look at). Neutralitytalk 01:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

New title

Let's think about this a little more. We seem to have agreement to expand the subject a little, from the single incident involving the Russian diplomats, to include some other (and possible future) issues involving classified information in this administration. And not just incidents (like the Manchester bomber thing) but overall aspects, such as the reaction of our allies to sharing information in general. But on thinking about it I don't like the title "Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Donald Trump administration". I don't like "Handling" as the first word, it seems like a very unlikely search term. How about "Classified and sensitive information in the Donald Trump administration"? Or "Trump administration handling of classified and sensitive information"? Other thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, how about "Treatment of confidential info by Trump but excluding all comparisons to prior administrations while including lots of primary source opinions denouncing Trump". It's a long title, but at least informs the reader about the contents of the article. Seriously, this article has a very obvious slant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
"Handling of classified information under the Trump administration". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The title should be natural and as concise as possible. The titles proposed by MelanieN seem reasonable, but Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Donald Trump administration is the most descriptive that I've seen so far without it being overly long. Redirects of the other proposed titles would allow the article to be found via search.- MrX 12:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I support Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Donald Trump administration. We should include "sensitive" because there is lots of sensitive but unclassified information out there. Neutralitytalk 15:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information. Simple and what makes these various events WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: Not all of the disclosures were by Trump himself. The Manchester Bomber information wasn't. That's why we are trying to broaden it to the Trump administration. --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The idea is to move this article to that title - while maintaining all the content and a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
My point is that Trump's disclosures to Russia have enough content and are WP:N that they justify an article. I would. It support such a move, as the current page has enough importance given the ongoing investigations.Casprings (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Casprings: Could you clarify your final comment there? I think there was a finger-glitch, or maybe Autocorrect took over. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I need my laptop back. Basically, this article should remain with content regarding trump and Russia. If there was another one, this article should be a sub of that one. The subject is his disclosures to Russia are WP:N on their own.Casprings (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Casprings, MelanieN: I could support this two-article proposal if folks think that's the cleanest way to do it. Neutralitytalk 18:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I prefer expanding the scope of this article - for several reasons. It allows us to put this one incident into perspective, and I'm not sure the other incidents (at this point, Manchester Bomber and location of nuclear subs) are worthy of a standalone article. And it gets a little bit away from the "Trump did something/Trump said something!" type of article that has become so common here in the past few months. If you read the AfD discussion, several people suggested keeping but expanding to be a little more general. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

See also

I've got no problems with removals from See also sections, take or leave as you will.

Have a lovely day, evening, whatever ! Sagecandor (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversies over Donald Trump's extemporaneous remarks

I think the article needs a new title; this is full of hype as-is. "Controversies over Donald Trump's extemporaneous remarks" is too wordy, but I feel the general trend here is that Trump says things without thinking that get him into trouble, particularly with the media. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

No. This article is about a specific incident, involving classified information. This is an order of magnitude different from his offhand tweets or stuff he says at rallies. I'm not aware of any of his other "extemporaneous remarks" that involved national security. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
From the lede: "It was also reported that Trump disclosed other classified information, namely the rough location of two nuclear submarines, to Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in a phone call on April 29.[16] On May 24, Britain strongly objected to the United States' leaking information, including the identity of the attacker in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, while their investigations were still underway, jeopardizing the investigation.[17][18]" Power~enwiki (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
We had discussed above expanding this article title to something that would include other disclosures of classified information by him and his administration. We never followed up on that; maybe we should. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The best title we had above was Trump administration's disclosures of classified information. I'm inclined to go ahead and change that. We did have consensus, just dropped the ball. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that or Trump administration disclosures of classified information is WP:MOS correct, but I'm fine with either. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Power~enwiki: I think you're right: No apostrophe. For that matter, how about a capital A? That's how we did Trump Administration and Trump Administration cabinet. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking around a little more I find it is not usually capitalized in titles, e.g. Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. I'll go ahead and move it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Done, and now I've made a whole lot of work for myself, because the article needs a complete rewrite, to create a proper lede section and sections for the other incidents besides the main Russia disclosure. Oh, and to fix all the redirects. Sigh, why do I do this to myself? 0;-D
I disagree with this move and I have reverted it. The consensus was pretty clear above. I request you take this to a move request.Casprings (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, at least you saved me a bunch of work. Luckily I hadn't started. Yes, I did think the consensus was pretty clear above:
* Keep this article separate and create a new article for the other two incidents: you in favor; Neutrality will accept if it is consensus.
* Create an article about multiple administrations: Favored by Anythingyouwant, opposed by me and Neutrality.
* Keep the other two incidents into this article (as they already are) and change the title to reflect that: Favored by me, Snooganssnoogans, MrX, and Neutrality; opposed by Anythingyouwant.
This is about the article's scope and content, not just the title, so I will start an RfC rather than a move request. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Merge/Delete?

No interest. Working on a merge proposal offline. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's been three months since the event and immediate discussion. This is a nothing-burger. I see no way the article can survive on its own.

Is there any content worth merging to some other page, and what page would that be? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:--Before proceeding with deletion or merger attempt, please send a courtesy ping to all the participants in the previous discussion.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. I was waiting for some of them to discuss it without a ping before starting a formal proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment: Scope and title of this article

Clearly the consensus here is to expand the article to include other similar instances, but there is enough support (and one opposition !vote) to keeping this only related to specific instances where Donald Trump disclosed the information. Thus, the page will be moved to Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information and can be expanded accordingly. Note that generic "administration" leaks do not fall under the purview of this RFCs expansion, but there is no prejudice against a new RFC seeking to expand the scope of this article further. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article be limited to the single instance of Donald Trump disclosing information to Russia? Or should it be expanded to include other instances of information disclosure by Trump and his administration, and the title modified accordingly?

This article is primarily about a single incident on May 10, where Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and Russian ambassador. There were two other disclosure incidents which are currently mentioned in the article but not expanded on: a disclosure by Trump on April 29 of classified Navy information, and a May 24 disclosure to the press by an anonymous Trump administration source of not-yet-released intelligence about the Manchester Arena bombing. I favor adding more information about those two incidents and changing the article title to the more inclusive title Trump administration disclosure of classified information. I thought consensus had been reached to do that and I made the move. Another editor disagreed and moved it back to the current title. Bringing it to the community for discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Just to be clear on the expand vote, it isn't open ended. This should be about disclosures which Trump makes himself, not a WP:COATRACK for any classified disclosure during his term. That will be open ended and the page will lose why this is WP:N. Casprings (talk) 02:21, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@MaynardClark, Volunteer Marek, RaymondYee, Casprings, JFG, Antony-22, Knowledgekid87, MrX, Neutrality, OhioOakTree, SPECIFICO, Sagecandor, Jimjianghk, Anomalocaris, BullRangifer, Laurdecl, SW3 5DL, Politrukki, Janweh64, BD2412, Nikolai Romanov, Thucydides411, Enthusiast01, Anythingyouwant, Snooganssnoogans, and Power~enwiki: Pinging previous contributors to this talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Two points, if we are to broaden this article:
(1) it should be clear that sensitive but unclassified information should be included. There are many situations when it is unclear whether a document is classified. I want to avoid future game-playing about whether a incident involved "highly sensitive" vs. "classified" information.
(2) "Disclosure" may also be too limiting, because many incidents involve questions of handling of information, separate from deliberate disclosure.

That's why something like Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Trump administration may be better, even if slightly longer. Neutralitytalk 19:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would certainly be OK with adding "sensitive" to the title; I think we had an earlier suggestion along the lines of "disclosure of classified and sensitive information". That of course would refer to the expanded article; if we keep it to the single incident, there is no question that the intelligence in that incident was classified. As for the title, I never liked "Handling" as the first word because it seems an unlikely search term. But if consensus here is to broaden the article, the exact title can be worked out after consensus is reached. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I too am open to using "sensitive", with the caveats for using caution and staying focused, as I've written below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

While the idea of broadening the scope has some merit (I just !voted for a specific form of expansion), we must avoid casting too broad a net. That would be disastrous, since the actions and controversies produced by Trump's "government by chaos" method would overwhelm the article and be an example of such a "chaos" system working right here. It's bad enough that it works in society, without bringing it here. We must not participate in the sabotage. We must keep our articles limited and focused, especially when dealing with Trump. More about this at this article: "Is Trump’s Chaos Tornado a Move From the Kremlin’s Playbook? It's terrifying to think that the Trump administration is simply winging it, in a swirl of lies, contradictions, and Twitter rants. A scarier possibility is that there is, in fact, a plan, taken straight from Putin 101."[1]

References

  1. ^ Mariani, Mike (March 28, 2017). "Is Trump's Chaos Tornado a Move From the Kremlin's Playbook?". Vanity Fair. Retrieved June 29, 2017.

-- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this article should be about disclosure (not handling in general) of classified info, and mainly to foreign government leaders. If Trump starts disclosing classified info to the American public rather than to foreign leaders, we might then need to decide if these are the same or different topics. The incident at Mar-a-Lago on the weekend of February 10–12, 2017, where Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Abe conferred about a North Korean missile launch in full view of the other diners, doesn't fit my sense of this article. That incident could go in another article like the proposed Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Trump administration. —Anomalocaris (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Irrespective of the eventual decision on article scope, I think that we should not include "sensitive" in the title because this may lead to any number of subjective assessments. "Classified" has a well-defined meaning and is widely used by RS to determine whether a disclosure or leak is notable. — JFG talk 15:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Request for closure made HERE. Casprings (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2017 Manchester Arena bombing

MelanieN, the leaks related to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing are indeed very serious, but they didn't come from Trump, so I have removed them from this article. Recall that a July 2017 report by the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs "found the Trump administration was being hit by national security leaks 'on a nearly daily basis' and at a far higher rate than its predecessors encountered": Damaging leaks have included the felony leak of Michael Flynn's "unmasked" identity and an account of a conversation he had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak to The Washington Post, resulting in Flynn's dismissal; The New York Times's inaccurate "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence" and other reports (e.g., "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources") purporting to detail the exact number of interactions between Trump campaign operatives and Russian officials in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election—"information (that) had to come from the top level of the FBI and would have been accessible to only a few"; NSA contractor Reality Winner's leak of "a highly classified intelligence report ... about a months-long Russian intelligence cyber effort against elements of the U.S. election and voting infrastructure" to The Intercept; the "unprecedented, shocking, and dangerous" (in the words of David Frum) leak of Trump's phone calls with the world leaders Malcolm Turnbull and Enrique Peña Nieto by the "national security establishment" (the transcript of Trump's conversation with Rodrigo Duterte, by contrast, "is an official document of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs," thus its leak did not have the same potential to jeopardize every future president's ability to candidly engage foreign leaders); and, indeed, the very fact that Trump discussed classified information with Kislyak and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov last May—which resulted in the revelation of "corroborating material that likely did more damage than the information that was actually shared." (As Marc Thiessen put it: "Ponder the irony: These geniuses were so appalled by Trump sharing sensitive intelligence with the Russians that they shared even more sensitive intelligence with the media—and thus the entire world—in order to demonstrate that Trump cannot be trusted with sensitive intelligence. In so doing, these leakers possibly did far more damage to U.S. national security—and intelligence-sharing between the United States and Israel—than anything Trump may have revealed to the Russians.") If the Manchester leaks WP:SYNTH belongs anywhere, it would be in a new article devoted to National security leaks during the Trump administration.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I agree with one thing: the Manchester bombing information came out through the press, rather than through Trump himself, so I am OK with removing it from this article which is about Trump's own leaks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What Trump Really Told Kislyak After Comey Was Canned

Great details. Should be added.Casprings (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Reevaluate this article

This discussion isn't going anywhere... If you want the article deleted there is WP:AfD, if you want the article merged then propose a merge, if you want to discuss policy there is WP:PUMP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now that some time has passed since this incident, it seems clear that there is no lasting notability. Should AFD be revisited for this article? Additionally, this article's title includes "disclosures," but there is still mainly the one listed, with simple footnotes describing two others. Pinging MrX and MjolnirPants in particular because of comments (If news coverage of subsides by the end of the AfD, I will gladly change my !vote to merge. and So if there are still stories being written about this in 6 months, that'd be an obvious keep. But if not, then we need to return to this discussion and determine whether this is something worth preserving. respectively) they made in the AFD. As it stands this article could simply stand alone as a news article, which Wikipedia is NOT. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If the material can be condensed and merged into another article, I might support it. The subject has been covered recently in at least one source. [4] - MrX 🖋 19:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
What would the merge target be? PackMecEng (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Mr Ernie - I suggest you ping more widely based on the | Point of this article? discussion above and participants in the JFG mentioned prior AFD that was an overwhelming Keep. Personally, I think the paragraph about this at Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Russia_2 is enough and other than a couple of good cites from here I wouldn't want to add more text to the Presidency article - it's already a bit much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I also see above that Power~enwiki also had the same concerns. I'm not sure who I should ping - everyone who participated in the AFD discussion as well as all the other participants on this page? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll ping: JFG, Neutrality, Mr, User:Lasersharp, User:Icewhiz, User:MjolnirPants, and User:Power~enwiki as the ones who did varied non-trivial and non-BS input before, covering the mix of less here, more here, or something else. (e.g. Merge into a part of broader Russia-US relations or to Information Security under Trump articles.) If these 7 come to general agreement what to do then I think it likely to work in general. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
What's the test for a non-trivial non-BS input? Not this, I guess: [5] SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Good point. While this is TOTALLY irrelevant to whether we keep an article or not, it's still interesting to check the last 90 days of page views. It's generally increasing. (Forget the outliers for yesterday and today.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you all realize that this is a huge violation of WP:PRESERVE? We even keep articles about obsolete topics. This is, at the very least, historical. Current notability is a matter of opinion and has zero bearing on whether it should be kept or not.

At so recent a time after the events (the consequences of which are still very active and ongoing), no one can judge it as having "no lasting notability". Even in 50 years it would be an irrelevant question. We would still keep it. That's what we do here. Notability at the time of creation is all that counts.

This whole section is an illegitimate suggestion and should be closed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to, very reluctantly, vote keep for now. There's still no good merge target. Maybe by the end of the year there will be something like Donald Trump's disregard for presidential norms or Media hysterias of the Donald Trump administration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it is a bit of a pickle since it did not turn into anything significant. Though there is some question on how much should be covered and how much some will want it to be covered, in each direction. I am a little surprised we do not have a generic article for this crap as well. The closest I could find it Russian interference but it is not a perfect fit there either. Sure we don't want to just burn this one down? PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Shocked to see this discussion and agree with Bull Rangifer. We don't decide lasting notability. We decide notability. We can't see into the future and so should not be pretending we can. If its notable now per our guidelines we can have an article on it. This isn't a paper encyclopedia so we aren't sort of space. And agree there can be historical interest.Sheesh.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC))

Actually, that's not correct. The basic policy here is Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY - notability is intended to be permanent, and we do at least try to "decide lasting notability", as many deletion debates demonstrate. But the policy recognises we may not always get this right. In such cases, as here, I'm likely to generally support a keep, as I think the question is usually adequately scrutinized at the time of creation - The 2017 afd on this article is a good example. Heaven knows that Trump's presidency is going to keep historians & readers busy for decades to come. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Not what the guideline says, it says,"Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.", which I believe means we decide notability in the here and now and not whether a subject will have ongoing coverage or lasting notability. We cannot see into the future.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
No, it says "ongoing coverage" is not needed for "lasting notability", which is obviously the case - the difference between news and history. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Ongoing coverage is not needed for lasting nobility which means notability can be determined in the present with out any evidence of whether that notability can be determined for the future. You are interpreting this in exactly the opposite way from written I believe.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC))
Seems clear enough to me: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". You seem to be arguing that it is temporary. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:NTEMP mentions that reconsiderations may occur. The article for Coveffe was an example of later on folks deleted it. There seems a lot of flaps that come and go so this may something where WP:SNOWFLAKE applies? Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:NTEMP is the policy we're discussing. It does contain this phrase ("reassessment of the evidence of notability") which may be a bit ambiguous. Per my understanding of Littleolive oil's comments below (worth reading), that phrase shouldn't be interpreted to mean that notability (as a requirement for article creation) is negatively affected because of less attention later in time. No, it doesn't. Lessening attention has no bearing on whether we keep an article.
It would be wrong to use waning notability as a measure for the later deletion of an existing article which was created on the basis of legitimate notability at the time of its creation. That is permanent.

"If today we establish notability then it is notable per Wikipedia for all time. Notability means today, right now, we have notability. We do not have to look into the future and try to judge whether that article will be notable in years to come." Littleolive oil

Therefore the phrase must mean that if a serious (not deletionist/censorship) question of whether there actually was notability "at the time of the article's creation" is raised, one can perform a "reassessment of the evidence of notability". IOW, if an article was created on a deceptive evidentiary basis (maybe with false claims of notability based on too few RS or using spurious sources) which is later discovered, an AfD could determine that such was the case and delete the article. That would be proper.
It would not be proper to start an AfD because, at a later date, some editor thought that the subject no longer possessed any continuing notability. That would be wrong. The only question to ask regarding notability is "Was the subject notable at the time, as documented by multiple RS?" If so, whatever happens later on is irrelevant.
If a year later (or ten years later) the page view statistics have stagnated at next to nothing, we still keep the article. Wikipedia does not stay at a certain size, it grows endlessly. It always keeps its articles. Many become historical records with nearly zero current notability, but we never delete history. Our job is to document it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Gosh no. This is what I'm reading. If today we establish notability then it is notable per Wikipedia for all time. Notability means today, right now, we have notability. We do not have to look into the future and try to judge whether that article will be notable in years to come. Further, we cannot use presumed notability in the future to establish notability for today which is a kind of circular argument for notability. But what occurs to me is that if an experienced editor like you has come to this reading and understanding how many more have, and how many read this as I do. I actually think we should do an RFA and clarify what the guideline is saying.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC))
  • Littleolive oil, you're a clear thinker. Definition and delimitation are both important concepts, and we need to do that better for Wikipedia's unique use of the word "notability" as it relates to article creation. It appears there is some ambiguous wording which leaves the door open for confusion and misinterpretation. We need to identify those words and close the door by improving them.
I totally agree with you that the "current notability" justifying creation of an article is the only relevant concern regarding its notability, because thoughts about "future notability" involve OR, CRYSTAL, and "editorial" POV (a violation of NPOV), and we should close the door to any of those types of editorial speculations. Current (time of creation) RS determine notability. Period. You put it so well:

"If today we establish notability then it is notable per Wikipedia for all time. Notability means today, right now, we have notability. We do not have to look into the future and try to judge whether that article will be notable in years to come." Littleolive oil

Those words should be enshrined in the policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Littleolive oil - We do not have to look into the future because it is now the past -- we now have a greater knowledge to reconsider per WP:NTEMP the prior WP:PAGEDECIDE, and more options than existed before. From the responses here I'd say WP editors are still interested but that outside it has been shown to have had no subsequent significance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No way. I suspect that Littleolive oil will agree that Waning coverage does not affect original notability at the time of article creation. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes a one-way assembly line with articles getting added at one end and being deleted at the other because page views have dwindled. Historians will curse us if we do that, and editors will realize that their efforts are in vain. No, we capture notable moments in time and preserve them forever.
WP:PRESERVE even reassures editors that their good faith efforts are not in vain, not just for articles they create, but for any good faith, properly-sourced, content they add. As much as possible, it should be improved/used, and not carelessly deleted. (That doesn't mean we keep all content. There are rules for that.)
Wikipedia is not paper, and we seek to document the sum total of human knowledge using reliable source coverage to determine notability. For current events, notability is determined by current coverage. For past events, it isn't even current coverage or attention which is the criteria, but the existence of reliable source coverage, even in the absence of any current attention or any current notability. Historians are welcome to work here.
When a new article properly passes the notability test, then it should not be summarily and carelessly deleted, and never because there is waning coverage or attention at a later date. To delete it on "notability" grounds, there should be suspicion, and evidence, that the original acceptance was based on false evidence. In that case, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, a "reassessment of the evidence of notability" is in order to confirm the suspicion. That "reassessment" is not because of waning attention or coverage. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
-- Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:N is established by coverage by WP:RS. Coverage is national and widespread. There has been no change. The article is and will always be WP:N because of that fact.Casprings (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have never seen Wikipedia as an assembly line where, as new articles are added at one end, older ones are deleted at the other....and this one isn't even old! "If today we establish notability then it is notable per Wikipedia for all time. Notability means today, right now, we have notability. We do not have to look into the future and try to judge whether that article will be notable in years to come." User:Littleolive oil -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I am saying we cannot see the future to determine notability the even stronger argument per Bull Rangifer is that attempting to do so violates our own policies and guidelines such as POV and OR. I'd take that one step further and suggest that we are an encyclopedia basing content on published sources. Generally we don't have access to sources from the future.:O).(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC))
  • Keep + Query per NOTTEMPORARY + What's with the !voting. If someone wants to delete the article WP:AFD is where the discussion should be taking place to get broad input. There is no such thing as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-TO-DELETE. Jbh Talk 14:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
It's probably my fault for starting the bolded-voting, but this is a Keep/Merge discussion (which does belong on the talk page). Nobody has suggested deleting it entirely at this point, AFAIK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Coverage is not Notability, and Notability is not permanent -- Pages are not necessarily forever - Good to straighten that out ? It's simply a fact that the WP:NTEMP considerations happen and for a number of ways something being a separate article gets looked at again and WP:PAGEDECIDE sometimes shifts over time and articles get moved/merged/grouped or deleted. By WP:NRVE "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." If it was just a viral flap or WP:POPULARPAGE, then WP:NOTNEWS of most news events do not qualify as enduring WP:SUSTAINED happens and it gets deleted. If it turns out to be one-of-many WP:SNOWFLAKE, as this one may be, then it gets lumped with others in one group article. Or maybe it is WP:RECENTISM and will fail the WP:10YT. I think there have been 2,774 AFDs on Trump articles, and 892 Trump articles remain. Weekly media coverage -- included dead articles Covfefe, James Comey Testimony, Inauguration day protests, List of Republicans opposing Trump, Donald Trump prophecy, Trump (comics), Little Rocket Man, Never Trump, Trumps Handshakes, Obama-Trump fued, Chessmaster meme, CNN beating video, Donald Trump resistance movement, Trumperism, Girther movement, and on and on. That I could find enough cites for Trump ties to make an article isn't the point -- the point is if whether there is a better idea. (p.s. I think in this case here is ...) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's "straighten this out", that this is your opinion: "Coverage is not Notability, and Notability is not permanent -- Pages are not necessarily forever." Then you immediately link to WP:NTEMP which says the very opposite: "Notability is not temporary". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This seems like a good example of WP:10YT. PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It's all well-sourced. So what would be the harm in keeping it even if it's not actively covered in media recently? Why not err on the side of keeperism? SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
No doubt most of the sources are just fine and it did receive a lot of coverage for a short time when it became public. But since then almost nothing, which makes the original reporting just look like sensationalism instead of something actually important. Just my 3 cents. PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, but we are not really in the business of deciding "sensationalism" where there's conventional media coverage and high quality sourcing. So then what harm is it to leave the article in place and expand when/if additional RS are found. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am a bit confused, is this article up for AfD or not? If you want the article deleted then please go-to the proper venue, other than that the discussion should be focused on a way to improve the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The way I read it is as a pre-merge discussion? I could be wrong though. PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems like nobody really knows where this discussion is going. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It's going nowhere, so what else is new? SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A reminder. Keep in mind that WP:10YT is a personal essay, not a policy or guideline. It's about writing (not deleting) so that there is enough detail to ensure that, when the article is read in ten years, it will still make sense. It's easy to fail to include such detail, because we are looking at current events with "recentism glasses" and don't include what we take for granted. Readers in ten years don't know the contextual facts and events, and we should remember to include them. So include more than enough, not less than enough. Think about those readers down the line, ten years from now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 23 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. See no general agreement below to rename this article. This request is about three weeks old, relisted once and would be eligible for a third relisting after three weeks, so it's time to close. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this name change. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information → Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia – The title was changed following an August 2017 RfC, which anticipated other significant disclosures of classified information by Donald Trump. Almost one year later, no such disclosure happened, or none was reported. Therefore the article should return to its original, correct title, which matches its actual contents and is more precise by mentioning Russia. If/when another disclosure happens, it will possibly get its own article. — JFG talk 05:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 23:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Did these leaks reach notability? — JFG talk 09:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: The content that was "Crystal" was removed by a slow moving edit war without discussion. This is POV pushing and does not belong here. The move discussion was clear about the consensus.Casprings (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would note that the RFC provides clear consensus to keep the extra content.Casprings (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
We are a year later; WP:consensus can change. I had not seen the extra content about other leaks before filing this move request. — JFG talk 10:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Cool beans. Well what happened was removal of the content, over reverts, without discussion. Then this move. Let’s close this, and have another RFC on rather the article should be about just Russia or russia and other disclosures.Casprings (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
If you are going to keep this open, you need to struck your Crystal argument part of your OP.Casprings (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, not really. What happened is that you restored today[6] material that had been deleted by Politrukki[7][8] and Srich32977[9][10][11] in March. Those edits have remained unchallenged for 4 months until I opened the move request. We should discuss separately whether this material is due. — JFG talk 19:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed content that had been off the article for about six months. My first removal was based on this discussion. The second one was because the content was about disclosures by Trump administration, not specifically by Trump. I see that I was pinged to the RFC, but did not participate. I don't remember whether I saw the RFC when I was doing my removals, but I think my removals were consistent with the RFC result.
@JFG: as there is a dispute about the old content, I would recommend withdrawing this move request. Politrukki (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Would Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information be better? Singular and shorter? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
No objection to that, although "to Russia" makes it more precise. — JFG talk 19:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
WP Emir, I'm not sure what your point is. The discussion last year ended up with a "keep and expand article". But no new reliable info about disclosures of classified material to Russia or anyone else has surfaced. – S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I gave two examples above. Dekimasuよ! 23:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: I wish there was more meat on the example-bones you provided. One, the Syrian battle was known to all parties involved and none of the info ("leaked" or otherwise) involved actual secret info. Two, the accusation in the second example is based on a partisan source. Moreover, Schiff spoke in passive terms ("if" and "would be"). In fact, if Schiff actually knew from classified sources, that Trump leaked the sources, Schiff's own disclosure would violate security rules because his revelation would serve to confirm the security leak! Hence, get see a mere insinuation of leaking, unsupported by facts. I hope my comments serve to show that our WP discussion/editing regarding classified sources is on very shaky ground. And when it comes to Trump, the ground gets tectonic. – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose the specific move-target suggested, though I don't like the current name either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - if that's what the article currently covers, then per WP:PRECISE the title should be as it was. RMs from a year ago aren't valid today if the assumptions they made haven't been met. If there are other verified and sourced disclosures to be covered, then cover them. Otherwise call the article what it is about.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information → Donald Trump's 2017 disclosures of classified information – There may have been various disclosures of classified information by Trump, for example by his unsecured cell phone usage. X1\ (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information/Archive_1&oldid=1180851002"