Jump to content

Talk:Wilbur Ross

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mmwilli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

References are missing for this article. I've added the first two. If you use the same format, the numbered footnotes will automatically be added to the reference section. For templates for other kinds of references, see the link on my user page. Thanks! --Beth Wellington 12:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wilbur Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Metrics

[edit]

The blog Philosophy of Metrics [1] is being used as a source under the Rothschild Investments section. I have some reservations about the reliability of the source. Has anyone else looked at the source? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It seems that this link has been removed from the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20110714064622/http://lear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=176 effeietsanders 15:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use this photo instead?

[edit]

It seems like his official portrait has been uploaded at commerce.gov. Is it possible to use this instead? I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if this falls under public domain or not. Samhiuy (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, Samhiuy. This is indeed OK, because US federal government publications should be public domain. If you find a better image, you can replace the image indeed, but it is not always necessary to use an 'official' image of course. In this case it made indeed a lot of sense. I see you changed the picture after your remark, so that's good! Welcome to Wikipedia. effeietsanders 08:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest cabinet member ever?

[edit]

Just a short question: is Wilbur Ross the oldest cabinet member ever confirmed? If so, I think that could be mentioned in the article. Cassandro (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to an unsourced blog article, he's the oldest member of by far the oldest cabinet ever. Politico says there are four cabinet-level nominees older than any in the Bush or Obama cabinet. According to Politico, the average age of the cabinet nominees in 2017 was 62 —which ties with Iran ;-) Wakari07 (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The JFK Library contains this document. The oldest, as I can read, is Henry L. Stimson, who was 77 when asked to stay on for a few months by Truman in April 1945. Data before McKinley and after Eisenhower are still missing. Wakari07 (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wilbur Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant info

[edit]

@Tobby72: Per your edit wars here, here and here i have remove the info you add until an agreeement on this can be occurred. Per brd do not restore this till we discuss this or i take you to administrator incident place for edit war on this article and the other ones (2018 china united relations, miao wei and canada china relations). Waskerton (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ross said in September that "China is out of bullets" [2] and the U.S. has "to create a situation where its more painful for them to continue their bad practices than it is to reform them" [3][4] after he said in August that "at the end of the day, we have many more bullets than they do. They know it." [5] I see a relevant pattern of threatening language, similar to the contested edits. Also @Waskerton: please keep in mind that the WP:Civility policy overrules the optional method of WP:BRD. Wakari07 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wakari07: Pffffft. "threatening" language. with your pov you have position to talk about "threatening" stuff. Besides we are not even talking about that you are totally off topic. my argument with tobby72 was about the RELEVANCY of the material. not civility. Also i see you are wikihounding by reverting some of my edits on multiple pages between myself and tobby72. You do one more of this and i will report you to adminiistrator incident notice. Waskerton (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Waskerton: I agree with @Wakari07:, my additions are relevant and the consensus is against you. You are wikihounding by reverting my edits, Waskerton — diff, diff, diff, diff. Please stop with it. Also beware of WP:BOOMERANG. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Gentleman

[edit]

@Therequiembellishere and Davey2116: Please discuss here and don't edit war about whether we should include Second Gentleman. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) was just about to post here. It's a completely fabricated title. Literally the only source this is used anywhere in the world is a single throwaway line from a 22 year-old NYT article saying "Second Lady". Absolutely nothing on Second Gentleman or Second Spouse. @Davey2116: Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is some immense goalpost-moving on your part. You said, I dare you to find me one good source from a reliable third party that uses this title ANYWHERE. Because it's a total a complete fake notion that you've come up with all on your own. I did so. (1/2)
By your standards, the title "Second Lady of the United States" should not be used in any but five infoboxes (since the term didn't exist before 1890, and very few spouses of VPs used the title even informally after that either). Even "First Lady" is not an official title in many cases. So we have a pretty solid precedent for using unofficial titles in the infobox (and second ladies from other states Judith Steinberg, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, Markos Kounalakis, etc., follow this precedent). I see that you're trying to reverse the precedent by removing the title from the recent NY Second Ladies/Gentlemen, which won't work and is very hypocritical on your part. (2/2) Davey2116 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you two are wondering if NYT is a RS you can raise it at WP:RSN. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if wikipedia can make a fake title real out of thin air, not if the Times is a RS and implore the user to use WP:SENSE. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a question of if they "use" the title, for the love of God. It. Is. Not. Used. Period. "Second Lady of the United States" gets 70,000+ results. As is laid out plainly and clearly for you above, no sort of fake New York equivalent gets hits beyond wikipedia and an insignificant mention in an article likely older than you are, not some grand historical piece on the life and times of New York's "Second Ladies". I honestly cannot even fathom how this is a "discussion" at all. It's doesn't exist and that should be the end of it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally a non-sequitur. You answered none of the arguments I made, but I appreciate the compliment on my youth (you're off by almost two decades, though). (1/3)
First, It. Is. Not. Used. Period., in addition to sounding childish, is categorically false, as I've shown. It's clearly not a fake title, so it's not Wikipedia which is making it real out of thin air. Besides, it's used for other states as well. Maybe there would be a grand historical piece on the life and times of New York's "Second Ladies" if it were more prominent, but then again, the Wiki page on Second Lady of the United States isn't based on such a grand historical piece either, just isolated articles about each (recent) individual Second Lady. (2/3)
On your last point that you cannot even fathom how this is a "discussion" at all, you took the words right out of my mouth. The term "Second Lady/Gentleman" is an informal one which refers to the spouse of the VP or lieutenant governor; since Wilbur Ross was this, he had this title. Therefore, by the Wiki precedent that I described above, it should be in the infobox. All of this is really obvious, so I'm not the one who isn't using WP:SENSE. (3/3) Davey2116 (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any references to a "Second Gentleman" of New York, let alone any specifying that Ross was the "Second Gentleman". Including that title here when no other source does falls under WP:SYNTH. We mention that Ross's wife was Lieutenant-Governor in prose, given there's no evidence that it's a recognised position or office there's no need to go beyond that and include it in the infobox – even if a simple descriptive term like "Spouse of the Lieutenant-Governor" was used. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request: Third Opinions are only available for disputes between exactly 2 editors. There were more than two before Ivar the Boneful weighed in, so either Ivar's comments constitute the third opinion or no third opinion was available. Either way, your request has been removed from the 3O page. If you wish additional dispute resolution consider a RFC or file at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC) (3O Volunteer) (Not watching this page)[reply]

Emir of Wikipedia didn't contribute to the discussion at all beyond cursory guidance, so Ivar the Boneful seems within the boundaries of a standard 3O. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives is investigating Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' use of private email for official business

[edit]

X1\ (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dribling

[edit]

Why are there aricles about Ross drooling and dribling on his tie in meeting? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilbur_Ross&oldid=1246914029"