This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
FBI search of Mar-a-Lago article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Old moves and deletion discussions | |||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cincinnati FBI field office attack was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 March 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into FBI search of Mar-a-Lago on 15 March 2024. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A lot of good work has gone in to the article today, and I am here to simply nitpick again. As usual, the upshot is correct, but we currently say the appeals court ruled to end the special master review
. Again, in lay terms, sure--that's the effect. But more specifically, they ruled that the district court never should have exercised jurisdiction. Therefore, they didn't even technically reach the question of a special master review. Technically, we might say it was
void ab initio. I would, therefore, like to take the specificity about the special master review out, and make the sentence about jurisdiction (with a subsidiary clause about the special master, possibly). As usual, if the consensus is that I am being hypertechnical or otherwise thick, no worries. Happy Friday, all.
Dumuzid (
talk) 01:53, 3 December 2022 (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 the passage of time has diminished the significance of the FBI search itself, and amplified the significance of the underlying possession of documents, I would suggest that the possibility of merging this into FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents be revisited. BD2412 T 02:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The article itself links to this: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mar-a-Lago_raid_affidavit 675930s ( talk) 08:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
There are several archived discussions, including a request to move, and the consensus is the current title ( Title, Requested move, Page move). You'd have to ask the creator of the wikisource page why they used the word "raid" for a document entitled AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 41 FOR A WARRANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZE when the affidavit does not mention the word at all. It does use "search" and "seize" numerous times. 11:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk)
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.
I propose merging FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents into FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. These articles have similar information and can be handled in one article. Not sure if the merge should be from "FBI investigation" to "FBI search" or vice versa, but there should not be two articles for the same topic. Natg 19 ( talk) 01:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
There's two places in this article that use mocked, one in Wikipedia's voice and the other in quotes. I figured that anything Trump-related beyond basic copyediting would likely require discussion, so thoughts of others on this? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
FBI search of Mar-a-Lago article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Old moves and deletion discussions | |||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cincinnati FBI field office attack was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 March 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into FBI search of Mar-a-Lago on 15 March 2024. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A lot of good work has gone in to the article today, and I am here to simply nitpick again. As usual, the upshot is correct, but we currently say the appeals court ruled to end the special master review
. Again, in lay terms, sure--that's the effect. But more specifically, they ruled that the district court never should have exercised jurisdiction. Therefore, they didn't even technically reach the question of a special master review. Technically, we might say it was
void ab initio. I would, therefore, like to take the specificity about the special master review out, and make the sentence about jurisdiction (with a subsidiary clause about the special master, possibly). As usual, if the consensus is that I am being hypertechnical or otherwise thick, no worries. Happy Friday, all.
Dumuzid (
talk) 01:53, 3 December 2022 (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 the passage of time has diminished the significance of the FBI search itself, and amplified the significance of the underlying possession of documents, I would suggest that the possibility of merging this into FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents be revisited. BD2412 T 02:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The article itself links to this: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mar-a-Lago_raid_affidavit 675930s ( talk) 08:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
There are several archived discussions, including a request to move, and the consensus is the current title ( Title, Requested move, Page move). You'd have to ask the creator of the wikisource page why they used the word "raid" for a document entitled AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 41 FOR A WARRANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZE when the affidavit does not mention the word at all. It does use "search" and "seize" numerous times. 11:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk)
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.
I propose merging FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents into FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. These articles have similar information and can be handled in one article. Not sure if the merge should be from "FBI investigation" to "FBI search" or vice versa, but there should not be two articles for the same topic. Natg 19 ( talk) 01:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
There's two places in this article that use mocked, one in Wikipedia's voice and the other in quotes. I figured that anything Trump-related beyond basic copyediting would likely require discussion, so thoughts of others on this? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)