Jump to content

Talk:Executive Order 14188

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

14188-1488 relationship - verifiable?

[edit]

I'm all for calling out white supremacy signals I do think it's interesting information, but it seems incredibly biased for Wikipedia in addition to being largely unverifiable - neither of the references in this section confirm a connection between the two, and is most certainly information that would NEED a reference (especially since that is what the entire section is about).

IMO, either this section needs a high quality-verifiable source, or it needs to be deleted. Bipolarcomposer (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created this page and added the text also has a history of bad faith edits and edits of questionable biases. Regardless of where the sentiment behind these edits come from, they have no place on Wikipedia without informed, high-quality sources. Bipolarcomposer (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an IP adress removed the section. It is suspicious though, will have to see if any reliable sources end up pointing out the connection or questioning it. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if a credible source alleging the connection arises, i think the section is worth having, but until then i agree that it shouldnt be included. GameCreepr (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns about sourcing, but allegations of the connection are all over social media. It's easy to see what this is, and it seems like there ought to be some way of acknowledging that so many people see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:F:18A5:7052:3DAA:A39B (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People are always promoting conspiracy theories on social media; this isn't notable. Notability is demosntrated through the use of independent sources. — Czello (music) 07:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an "alleged connection" or "controversy" section could be in order, as there's plenty of evidence of people claiming the connection on social media, as to acknowledge the discourse without making judgements. 2600:1008:B13D:1BB:5072:BA70:8ED9:5EEB (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of evidence of people nattering online isn't concrete sources that Wikipedia can use, please see WP:CITE and WP:V. Nobody can deny the fact that the designation is at least similar to 14/88, but, without sources from reliable news agencies making that connection, we simply cannot add that information or anything relating to it to this page. CommissarDoggoTalk? 20:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a source for saying "1+1=2"?
Trump is a neo-nazi, 14/88 is a neo-nazi dogwhistle. 14/88 with the / turned into a 1 for numeric coding is blindingly obvious. And he made this the one about Jews. Where's the doubt? 81.2.120.161 (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't how Wikipedia works. For it to be added it needs to be demonstrated this is a notable controversy. — Czello (music) 06:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADL figures

[edit]

Shouldn't the Wikipedia consensus regarding ADL claims apply to this article as well? A lot of the main body just repeats ADL claims as facts or includes articles that only cites ADL figures. The only reception being a single opinion piece that doesn't appear to be particularly notable also raises WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. — jonas (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I added an update that addresses some of these concerns. JA (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]