The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
@Horse Eye's Back, FactOrOpinion, and AnonymousScholar49:Selbsportrait continues to exhibit WP:OWN behavior on this article as we have discusses in other places. My current gripe being that he will not allow any form of clarification that claims in the articles sometimes come from anonymous sources. I think there is a meaningful difference between the verifiability and the reliability of claims made solely on account of anonymous sources vs named sources. I further believe we should make this transparent to the reader. Curious what you have to say on this matter Czarking0 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources for this story were granted anonymity because they feared retribution if they were named" means the journalist knows the sources' names.
That's not the same thing as an anonymous source contacting a journalist.
"Source" does not imply anonymity. Reporters often use named sources. In journalism, an anonymous source is someone whose identity isn't revealed to readers/listeners. The identities of most anonymous (aka confidential or unnamed) sources are generally known by the reporter, though on rare occasions, the source's identity isn't known, as when an unknown source mails a relevant document to a reporter.
It strikes me as reasonable though not essential to note that information came from a confidential source. But the bigger point is: this is now in the D portion of BRD, so the people who care about this should try to come to consensus about it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Reporters often use named sources."
Then they name them. That's not the usage of "source" that is relevant here.
"Anonymous sources" undersells that the information is from credible source with direct knowledge of factual matters. "Staffers" would be more appropriate. My point is that words such as "staffers", in such context, already implies that they don't want to be named. In other words, "anonymous staffers" would be a pleonasm. If we want to make clear that we're talking about anonymous staffers, we can always indicate it in the citation quote.
When a whole bureau tells journalists that they can't access a level, when the level is blocked by security guards, when they show invoices of washing machines, when they show photos of transponders, to speak of "anonymous sources" is far from clarifying anything. It's actually a way to game conciseness. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would it affect either WP:V or WP:RS? As for your mention of WP:SPORTSTRANS below, I don't see how it's relevant, since we're not talking about speculation re: a future event. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should speak of "underhanded" suggestion, for clarification's sake.
When it's not "who" questions, it's reliability. When more clarifications is added to support reliability, then it'll become worries about undue weight. And at every step information is being destroyed needlessly.
No attempt to salvage anything, or even understand what is being said and done. Just pure destruction. Once again by invoking another WP term that is misapplied. Selbsportrait (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They need to assume good faith too. Both of you should assume good faith and try to come to consensus about the issues where you disagree. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Selbsportrait: I apologize. I did not realize you considered OWN to be against AGF. I want to make clear that I think you have made great contributions to the article and I believe you are operating in good faith. I also think you exhibit OWN behavior on this article. I did not come to this conclusion on my own, but thought it was appropriate to bring it up after here after other editors had already warned you of it on your talk page and you continued to do so here. From WP:OWN "An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic". Also from OWN "It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil" so I do not think making a section raising OWN concerns violates the assumption of good faith.
Further from OWN:
"An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently." I think reverting Anonymous sources vs sources is a great example of this.
"Frequently" here means twice. Both times it was you who kept trying to add "anonymous" instead of clarifying that it was multiple staffers. And we now know that it's because of a misunderstanding about the role of anonymous sources in journalism. Gossip isn't just about future events: it's about anything unreliable. Trade rumors based on something overheard by the personal trainer's cousin, reported by a sports columnist who has been burned many times by their sources, say.
And of course the WP:OWN accusation indeed breaks the assumption: "Unless an editor exhibits behaviour associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part and regard their behavior as stewardship." I said why I believed that "anonymous" made the page worse: it adds nothing, and using "sources" instead of "staffers" subtract. Just like there's really no need to add that, for instance, WaPo interviewed 25 people for their story and that their testimony has been corroborated with material evidence: readers can check that for themselves by reading the article.
Besides, we both know from where you saw WP:OWN last. Perhaps you find back the relevant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring discussion, using the same canvassing technique? Selbsportrait (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to ask Selbsportrait to clarify that. I was simply responding to your statement that you didn't know what canvassing refers to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you stop responding with questions. Czarking0 told you that he didn't understand what you meant (and part of the problem may be that "Perhaps you find back the relevant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring discussion" isn't grammatical), and the most productive response is just to explain what you meant.
For example, if you meant something like "I don't accept your apology, because I don't see how anyone can allege WP:OWN while assuming good faith," then say that. If you meant "this is the second time you've pinged the same three other editors in raising your concerns with me, and it strikes me as canvassing," then say that. If you do accept the apology, it would be helpful for you to say so and apologize in turn for the allegation of gamesmanship. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you stop trying to pretend that your counterfactuals are somehow productive and not loaded at all.
I also suggest that you stop acting like you're some kind of referee here.
I'm not a referee, nor am I pretending anything. If you find my response to you unproductive, I regret that. The fact remains: Czarking0 told you that he didn't understand what you meant, and you've chosen to respond to him with questions instead of clarifying. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you present as a fact contains a judgment. I could reply that the fact remains that only thing you didn't address is WP:AAGF to make you get that point. I said I could: does it mean I didn't? Of course I did, by using apophasis.
Counterfactuals work the same way. You're using that a rhetorical device that defeats the point of your comment. It's indirect. The same applies to pro-tips such as "WP:AGF, please". They're basically self-defeating. Which is why we have pages such as
WP:ATEAGFATYAAGF
If you want direct, go first.
Now, the claim that "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently" implies edit warring.
WP:3RR also implies edit warring.
Appealing to WP:OWN instead of WP:3RR amounts to the same when the underlying accusation is edit warring. For two edits. On two different cases. Edits that I justified, and that is supported by journalistic practices.
Whatever the intent behind that behavior, the accusation is worse. Way worse.
So I hope you'll forgive me if doubling down to WP:OWN after trying WP:3RR me rubs me the wrong way.
Now, it is quite possible that those who make WP:OWN accusations misunderstand the implications of "Unless an editor exhibits behaviour associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part and regard their behavior as stewardship".
I think FactOrOpinion is trying to help this stay on track. I do not think any of us are here to argue but to write this article. I propose that if you think my changes are unproductive you leave them up at least for a few days. If they are really so bad then I think other editors will also look to modify them. I believe you implied in this conversation that the article has more important changes for you to make than the ones I have addressed. I probably agree with that point. If you wait a few days to overwrite my changes then it will (I think) leave you more time to focus on the parts that you deem as important. If no one else has overwritten my changes then you could still do so and we could potentially BRD will less arguing. I believe propagating the current mode of editing between us will only continue to lead to argument. Czarking0 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In return, I propose that talk pages are all about providing good arguments.
Code words are weak. They lead you astray too many times already on this page. If you can't say what you mean directly, drop them. If you can say what you mean, you should drop them.
Voicing an opinion is not an argument. Consensus is based on tallying up arguments, not votes. That's the meaning behind the saying that Wikipedia is not a democracy.
Appealing to intentions is irrelevant. That includes appealing to your own intentions. It's the best way to introduce personal attacks in a discussion, more often than not indirectly.
Pinging people should be done sparingly, and for the sake of getting better arguments. Not opinions, certainly not opinions about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edit requested below in bold. It seems that in the ever determined effort at getting bias in this article, someone neglected to state the obvious, which is that as a federal government entity they have taken the data from government servers for use in their government systems. Why didn’t we say that? Because it doesn’t paint the narrative that biased people editing this page want to paint. Let’s ensure that this page is neutral. Suggested edit below.
Well, unfortunately, I would never pay anything for the New York Times and that’s the only way to read the article. But it looks like they were using Palentyr to analyze data. Doesn’t that mean that the president/designee in his official government capacity is using a government contractor? Most likely the files they took from one government system are hosted by another federal contractor. So how is it one a government system and the other not? 2600:387:F:6311:0:0:0:4 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested edit that would be in line with the spirit of the editing on this article
I’m truly shocked that with all the false information and bias we have here, that we neglected to include an idiotic leftist professor who thinks that Elon Musk killed 300,000 people. So that we’re consistent in the editing of this article, can we add this as well? And thank your grassy ass!
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This estimation was actually previously in the article but I removed it because I did not think it was linked to DOGE's work. I did not remove it because of concerns over accuracy, as it only claims to be an estimation and the methodology is transparent and peer-reviewed. After looking into it again, I have found that DOGE was indeed involved in ending the aid programs and so I have added the estimation back in. 📻NuclearSpuds🎙️03:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“I did not remove it because of concerns over accuracy, as it only claims to be an estimation and the methodology is transparent and peer-reviewed.”
I’m confused here. So is it up to Wikipedia standards that as long as something is said to be an estimate and someone got a so-called peer to review what they wrote, that we just include it here regardless of accuracy? Seems a little bit preposterous and if that’s how we’re going to operate here then certainly Wikipedia should be considered unreliable. 166.198.157.16 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, the claim is not that there is professional consensus that 300k people have died or even that such a claim is true. The claim is that a particular researcher’s impact counter estimates 300k deaths. It is a truthful and not exceptional claim to present an estimation as an estimation. The reason why this estimation is included is threefold: it comes from a subject-matter expert with many publications in peer-reviewed journals (source, policy), the estimations specifically have been assigned credibility by a reliable source (source, policy1, policy2), and the methodology is peer-reviewed (source, policy). 📻NuclearSpuds🎙️22:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the dismantling of USAID has more extensive effects. This was from early March, and I expect that better sources can now be found, though I doubt that any are this comprehensive. The author again has subject matter expertise. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
.svg)
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
