This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2018 RussiaâUnited States summit 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
User:Soibangla: I see that you changed the theme sentence of this paragraph to be "television commentators" rather than "major television news media". You removed the comment by former president Obama. You added a comment from David Gergen, sourced only to his own Twitter feed. You did all of this without any comment here at the talk page. Would you care to chime in? In the meantime I am going to delete the Gergen quote, since he was not a television commentator, just a Twitter user talking to himself and his followers, and a Google search suggests that no reliable secondary source has chosen to repeat or report on his comment.-- MelanieN ( talk) 19:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, Soibangla added a pretty good source, although the context of the quotation, according to that source, seems to be more about Trump's commentary on Clinton's email than his failure to affirm US intelligence in Putin's behalf. Gotta think about this one, the source is there, but the context is wrong. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER ANCHOR: I think that was the nut, "I don't see any reason why it would have been Russia," hacking into our election and went on to talk about the server and the 30,000 e-mails, et cetera. He basically said, in Russia, they would never have let this stuff happen. I mean, it really was quite extraordinary, actually. I thought we were going to get out of that press conference with a minimum of damage, and that was really, really extraordinary, as you just said. And he then said that Putin came up with a great offer as to how to figure this out, which, of course, Putin responded, as he always does, with the sort of obfuscation. Yes, we have a sort of treaty on various issues, but you have to send us a formal letter and we'll respond and we'll reciprocate, but only in kind, we need to have people of interest, et cetera. So it's a very typical Putin response. But that was an incredible statement.
COOPER: David Gergen, have you ever seen anything like this?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: No. And it's a struggle to put it altogether, isn't it, and comprehend what we've just heard. I've never heard an American president talk that way. But I think it's especially true that when he's with someone like Putin, who is a thug, a world-class thug, that he sides with him again and again against his own country's interests, his own institutions that he runs, that he's in charge of the federal government. He's in charge of these intelligence agencies, and he basically dismisses them and he retreats into this -- we've heard this again and again on an international stage to be talking about Hillary's server and --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: It's embarrassing.
GERGEN: -- his brilliant campaign. It's embarrassing.
OK, well, that's an improvement. It's still the primary source, but at least it was on CNN and not Twitter. Waiting for further discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it makes sense to include some response to the almost universally negative press reaction to the summit. But an entire paragraph devoted to one talk show host's criticism of the media reaction? [1] Per WP:DUE, our coverage is supposed to be proportionate to the coverage by sources. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (bolding mine) The negative coverage of the summit was probably a hundredfold more widespread than the conservative response to it. In this article, we have a paragraph about the cover art of three magazine, and another paragraph with one-sentence summaries for each of four commentators and one panel. In other words, two paragraphs, eight sources, eight different reactions. That's DUE. But a whole paragraph - four sentences and a single source - about just Levin's reaction? That seems very much UNDUE to me. I think a single sentence would be more appropriate. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
To the reactions section, somebody added two videos of two of the remarks in the section (one a press briefing, the other a comment on MSNBCâs Morning Joe). I donât think either video adds any additional insight or value for the reader and I have deleted them. I'm open to being overruled on this if some people think they add value. But I would hate to see us start cluttering up articles with video of everything that everybody says. (Maybe itâs just me but the videos donât work anyhow - they are just still pictures.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
In the aftermath of the summit there were a large number of reliable sources addressing the question of whether Trump committed treason. This issue should be addressed in our article. Here's a start on some research. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] R2 ( bleep) 18:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2018 RussiaâUnited States summit 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
User:Soibangla: I see that you changed the theme sentence of this paragraph to be "television commentators" rather than "major television news media". You removed the comment by former president Obama. You added a comment from David Gergen, sourced only to his own Twitter feed. You did all of this without any comment here at the talk page. Would you care to chime in? In the meantime I am going to delete the Gergen quote, since he was not a television commentator, just a Twitter user talking to himself and his followers, and a Google search suggests that no reliable secondary source has chosen to repeat or report on his comment.-- MelanieN ( talk) 19:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, Soibangla added a pretty good source, although the context of the quotation, according to that source, seems to be more about Trump's commentary on Clinton's email than his failure to affirm US intelligence in Putin's behalf. Gotta think about this one, the source is there, but the context is wrong. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER ANCHOR: I think that was the nut, "I don't see any reason why it would have been Russia," hacking into our election and went on to talk about the server and the 30,000 e-mails, et cetera. He basically said, in Russia, they would never have let this stuff happen. I mean, it really was quite extraordinary, actually. I thought we were going to get out of that press conference with a minimum of damage, and that was really, really extraordinary, as you just said. And he then said that Putin came up with a great offer as to how to figure this out, which, of course, Putin responded, as he always does, with the sort of obfuscation. Yes, we have a sort of treaty on various issues, but you have to send us a formal letter and we'll respond and we'll reciprocate, but only in kind, we need to have people of interest, et cetera. So it's a very typical Putin response. But that was an incredible statement.
COOPER: David Gergen, have you ever seen anything like this?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: No. And it's a struggle to put it altogether, isn't it, and comprehend what we've just heard. I've never heard an American president talk that way. But I think it's especially true that when he's with someone like Putin, who is a thug, a world-class thug, that he sides with him again and again against his own country's interests, his own institutions that he runs, that he's in charge of the federal government. He's in charge of these intelligence agencies, and he basically dismisses them and he retreats into this -- we've heard this again and again on an international stage to be talking about Hillary's server and --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: It's embarrassing.
GERGEN: -- his brilliant campaign. It's embarrassing.
OK, well, that's an improvement. It's still the primary source, but at least it was on CNN and not Twitter. Waiting for further discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it makes sense to include some response to the almost universally negative press reaction to the summit. But an entire paragraph devoted to one talk show host's criticism of the media reaction? [1] Per WP:DUE, our coverage is supposed to be proportionate to the coverage by sources. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (bolding mine) The negative coverage of the summit was probably a hundredfold more widespread than the conservative response to it. In this article, we have a paragraph about the cover art of three magazine, and another paragraph with one-sentence summaries for each of four commentators and one panel. In other words, two paragraphs, eight sources, eight different reactions. That's DUE. But a whole paragraph - four sentences and a single source - about just Levin's reaction? That seems very much UNDUE to me. I think a single sentence would be more appropriate. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
To the reactions section, somebody added two videos of two of the remarks in the section (one a press briefing, the other a comment on MSNBCâs Morning Joe). I donât think either video adds any additional insight or value for the reader and I have deleted them. I'm open to being overruled on this if some people think they add value. But I would hate to see us start cluttering up articles with video of everything that everybody says. (Maybe itâs just me but the videos donât work anyhow - they are just still pictures.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
In the aftermath of the summit there were a large number of reliable sources addressing the question of whether Trump committed treason. This issue should be addressed in our article. Here's a start on some research. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] R2 ( bleep) 18:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)