Jump to content

Talk:I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

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


Sources

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 00:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the media's reaction is of interest to the "Reaction" section in the article:
– numbermaniac 11:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

I added a redirect from quiet resistance, I suspect a couple more might be warranted, because of the unwieldy title.--Pharos (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that if this does receive a WP:COMMONNAME through lasting nobility, we can move it to that name. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm mainly thinking of having likely search terms as redirects, so the article is easier to find.--Pharos (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article will never achieve "lasting nobility." KalHolmann (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a Featured Article on a controversial political topic like this could achieve a level of nobility, no matter the opinion one has of the op-ed author :)--Pharos (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably review the meaning of nobility. KalHolmann (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Will never achieve lasting notability? I could not disagree more. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It amuses me to discover that no fewer than three Wikipedia editors are laughably careless readers. Nobility ≠ notability. KalHolmann (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KalHolmann: Hah! Indeed, I read this section too fast after commenting on the section below, which does address notability. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am embarrassed to see that I'm the one who introduced that typo. Facepalm Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my comment used "nobility" in its proper sense! Wikipedia itself is a noble and ridiculous project.--Pharos (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have witnessed the power of T & A. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General article on administrative disobedience

[edit]

We should probably have something more general on this, don't know the proper name.--Pharos (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I would support an AfD on this article at the present moment. But, by the time the AfD came to closure, my guess is that there would be enough fallout that I would change my !vote. Such is recentism. O3000 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, not another AfD on a notable topic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't calling for an AfD, just a more general article to link to from this one. Something like Trump administration disobedience or just administration disobedience for a broader view. There is probably a better term than "administrative disobedience" though.--Pharos (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The French used the word résistance, which has the advantage of having both a weak and strong connotation at once. O3000 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. KalHolmann (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are all flawed as an applicable concept, and so is Deep state in the United States.--Pharos (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this idea has some merit, since it has been noted previously by many people that Trump's proclamations and Twitter commands often do not get carried out. For example, this column came out before the op-ed was published and was based on Woodward's new book. And this one was published in August. --MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More: here's one from a year ago August. And how about this one from February, where U.S. officials tell world leaders to just ignore what Trump says? --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More: “Tweets are not policy”; “Increasingly, federal officials are deciding simply to ignore President Donald Trump.” This may have seemed like a bombshell, but it is not new information, folks. --MelanieN (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not new, and there are a bunch of RS on it. One term that comes up in a number of reports is "shallow state", signifying that this is pushback from his own political appointees rather than from a putative "deep" bureaucracy. Or more prosaically, we could do Trump administration insubordination.--Pharos (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to be careful not to conflate different things. While Trump may be an extreme example, politicians often say things either without being able or without intending to follow through, or at least for whatever reason don't follow through. In other words, the fact that Trump says crap via Twitter that never becomes policy isn't in itself that surprising and has limited relevance to the op-ed. The fact that people are allegedly hiding papers he intends to sign or has signed or are ignoring direct orders etc is a different matter. It may be true that many people feel Trump doesn't really seem to properly understand the difference between the former (stuff he says on Twitter) and the later (stuff he does via the normal channels that all presidents use to set policy and shape their administration), but they are still different things. I mean of course it may also be that part of the reason for the disconnect is that people often aren't willing to help him do things properly but it's always difficult to know precisely what is going on, so the Tweets and spokespeople messages don't tell us much. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omarosa

[edit]

I think we should remove the entire Omarosa section. First she says she knows who it is but won't say; then she posts a poll with some names on it; then she guesses it is someone in Pence's office. IMO she is just blowing smoke. She doesn't know who it is any more than anyone else does, and is just looking for some attention. The only secondary source that has reported on her comments is The Hill.[1] I think this is not encyclopedia-worthy. --MelanieN (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the paragraph. I don’t think twitter trends should be included, partly because the connection is OR, and partly because it’s silly. Also, I don’t think we should ever include anything about a non-scientific poll. O3000 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Twitter trends could be an interesting measure of the public impact, as long as those trends are reported in RS.--Pharos (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should be included really needs to be guided by whether it has received significant coverage. E.g., the people who have denied being the author were never likely suspects based on the content of the op-ed, and the NY Times' commentary about it (on the Daily podcast, the Times' op-ed editor talked briefly about verifying who the person is; we can guess he doesn't need to google Mike Pence or cabinet members). But the denials are what has received coverage. Omarosa's stuff hasn't, really. We'll catch up if it does.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Denials are being covered in RS at the moment. I don't think we should be adding possible authors as these are pure guesses, and could run afoul of WP:BLP restrictions. O3000 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had included info about Omarosa mostly because she worked for the Trump administration, but I'll let other editors decide if her claim to know the author's identity and the poll she ran online are worth mentioning. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Political environment" section

[edit]

Should any mention of Omarosa (and her book) be added to the "Political environment" section? Like Woodward, she's been in the press a lot recently, and has even weighed in on the op-ed, as noted above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an anonymous essay by a senior official

[edit]

It is not a a text "the editorial board said was written" by a senior official. There are no RS to doubt the NYT on this, and removing "anonymous" from the lede sentence doesn't make any sense at all.--Pharos (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted this. I think it's important to reiterate that there's no serious doubt that the editorial is what the NYT says it is. The only real debate has been over what "senior administration official" really means - see this. GABgab 22:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion continues under the heading Opening sentence: unnamed rather than anonymous?. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guesses/Rumors

[edit]

We should not be including anyone’s guesses as to the author. Attributed, this is gossip. In Wikivoice, this is a WP:BLP violation. There is zero evidence for such. Forget NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, this is not a tabloid. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me. Are you trying to make the point that it's OK to mention that there are theories who the author is, but not OK to list the theories that have been published in WP:RS? BarbadosKen (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more appropriate to mention theories based on the author's ideology and motivations, rather than to name specific names.--Pharos (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence: unnamed rather than anonymous?

[edit]

At Everything Language and Grammar: Anonymous or Unnamed Source, Paul Yeager writes "Anonymous implies that no one knows who the source is–it’s an unknown source. An unnamed source implies that the reporter knows who the source is (and presumably believes that the source is reliable) and chooses to respect the source’s request to not be credited for the story." The author's identity is known to the NYT editorial board, so in my opinion, unnamed is a better adjective to describe the author. Swapdisk (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a section on this above; probably should be merged. The "senior official" here is not the source for a story written by a reporter - which would be a different journalistic guideline. The official is the actual author of their own essay, which has been published by the NYT. Of course the publisher knows their identity, which is true for very many items in Category:Works published anonymously.--Pharos (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Swapdisk. The 3rd sentence says that the NY Times knows who is the author, but is withholding the identity a secret. Therefore, not an anonymous author. What makes the word "anonymous" even more out of place is that article says that the editorial was written by a high ranking administration official, so the word "anonymous" simply does not fit. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swapdisk's link from Paul Yeager is clearly about a "source" that is quoted in a reported story. This is not a reported story at all. Your own apparent personal definition, BarbadosKen, that an anonymously published work should be unknown even to the publisher(!), is bizarre, not backed up by RS, and would exclude most of the items in Category:Works published anonymously.--Pharos (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that the op-ed has been colloquially dubbed as "anonymous". However, that is not necessarily the most accurate term to use in the article. I guess I should ask if there is anything wrong with the way the article currently reads
I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" is an essay written by a senior official working for the Donald Trump administration, and published by The New York Times on September 5, 2018. ...... The New York Times editorial board said that it knows the author's identity but have granted the person anonymity for job security purposes. --- BarbadosKen (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the dictionary.com definition for the word anonymous, and they give it as "without any name acknowledged, as that of author, contributor, or the like:" While technically the name is not acknowledged for this op-ed, the title of the author as a "senior Trump Administration official" is acknowledged, so I'm not sure if this case truly meets this dictionary definition. But I do recognize that since the name is not acknowledged, it would not be wrong to use the word anonymous, albeit not 100% accurate. I guess it's a gray area. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have looked at Definition #2, which says "name is withheld", so I guess it is 100% accurate to use the term "anonymous" in this case, and I will go ahead and add the word to the lead sentence. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read deeply in all the available sources on this topic, but given that a sizable portion of the cited sources have "anonymous" in their titles, I'm guessing that this essay is widely and credibly regarded as anonymous. We should follow the consensus in reliable, secondary sources that directly discuss this article per WP:WEIGHT, not impose our own views based on which definition we pull out of our favorite dictionary, or quibble about the technical definition of "anonymous", which is textbook original synthesis. If the majority of sources describe this as "anonymous", then so should we (even if it's not technically...). It's that simple. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the majority of sources describe this as "anonymous", then so should we (even if it's not technically...). It's that simple. Hmmmm..... A large number of sources use the colloquial term Trump travel ban, but that term should not be used within the articles about the actions by Trump, because it's not encyclopedic. There is an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia called Trump travel ban about the colloquial use of the term.
The bottom line is that just because newspapers use a certain term, does not mean that the term is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
This conversation is now moot. The dictionary shows that use of the word "anonymous" is technically correct in this case, so there is no need to argue this any further. BarbadosKen (talk)

To remove the president from office?

[edit]

Invoking the 25th amendment doesn't remove the president from office. From section 4 of the 25th amendment, "the Vice President would become Acting President, not President, and the sitting President would not be removed from office." Changing to read 25th amendment as a way to "remove the president from power" rather than "remove the president from office" in the introduction of the article. Swapdisk (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "remove the president from power" is accurate in terms of immediate consequence, but the ultimate goal of invoking the 25th would be to remove him from office.--Pharos (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denials from all cabinet members and cabinet-level officials (expect Kelly)

[edit]

We have a complete set now, I think this might be worth noting. Obviously there are other names/positions on our denial list as well. I also found denials from Joseph Simons, Ajit Pai, and more or less from Raj Shah, if people think they are worth adding to our list too.--Pharos (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, can't find anything from John F. Kelly, he's the last holdout. It is certainly possible he considers it beneath his dignity to issue a denial.--Pharos (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable sources, I suggest that you add those people to the list. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are RS for them, and also for Kelly's deputy Zachary Fuentes. My only concern is if they were too minor figures to list, I guess not.--Pharos (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Simons, Pai and Shah. Shah wasn't technically an "It wasn't me" statement, but it was a strong condemnation of the anonymous author (calling them "gutless"), so I think it probably counts.--Pharos (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "denials" are strong condemnations and strictly speaking, not denials. We should probably scrutinize the statements to see who has and who has not actually denied writing the essay. Although the Washington Post reported the statements of most of these officials as denials, that does not make it so. Case in point, Andrew Wheeler's non-denial denials states "I support President Trump @POTUS 100% and am honored to serve in his cabinet whoever wrote the op-ed should resign". BarbadosKen (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it would be very ORry for us to decided independently if a statement is actually a denial or simply some sort of Non-denial denial without an RS. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

For the list of names, should we link all the role titles, or would this be overlinking? For example, we'd link "Secretary of Labor" to United States Secretary of Labor. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Why not? You don't need to ask permission. Just do it, and if somebody objects (I won't object) then discuss to see what is the reason for the objection. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't want to spend time adding 30+ links just to see a revert. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't, per WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. For the purpose of this article and usage, the people are the focal emphasis, their roles secondary, and can be followed on their respective articles if need be. Adding more blue links doesn't necessarily help readers. This is partly my opinion of course, but style matters. This is an article about an essay, we don't need to provide tangential lessons in US government positions that predate and will outlast current officeholders. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SEAOFBLUE is not applicable to the question at hand since it talks about linking to a single term when possible rather than multiple terms (with the given example of Irish Chess Championship vs. Irish Chess Championship).
I'm not sure I can figure out what part of WP:OVERLINK addresses the question at hand. The offices that these people hold are not exactly common terms. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context section

[edit]

This new section contains a chain that is veering far afield of the subject of the article. From a NYT op-ed about the WH, to the Woodward book, to Kavanaugh, to the election and Ted Cruz. A great deal of WP:SYNTH. I suggest it be removed and discussed here. O3000 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only recent event directly alluded to in the op-ed is the McCain funeral, and I do think that in particular bears mentioning.--Pharos (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent point. I have added it to the article.
The rest of the section is not very well written, but at this point I'm not sure what to do to strengthen it. But we should rename it to "background". BarbadosKen (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section should be removed and the McCain sentence placed elsewhere in the article. O3000 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other stuff could be useful if done carefully, and not implying coordination in an unwarranted way. The NYT The Daily (podcast) has more details on exactly when the op-ed was submitted to them, but I don't have time to listen through it again now. By the way, the infamous "lodestar" reference is almost certainly a quote from Kissinger at McCain's funeral.--Pharos (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to rename the section and rewrite it in a more encyclopedic tone. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Collapsible table re: "Trump administration officials who have denied writing the essay"

[edit]

Is the collapsible table really necessary? I'm not sure when and how they denied is as important as the simple fact that they denied, plain and simple. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let others decide if we should stick to the list or the table, but in the meantime, since the table's incomplete, can you polish a final version here on the talk page before implementing?

Over 30 senior administration officials have denied authoring the editorial. They include:

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Mettler, Katie; Kirkpatrick, Nick (September 6, 2018). "These officials have denied writing the Trump 'resistance' op-ed". Washington Post.
  2. ^ a b c Stracqualursi, Veronica; Zeleny, Jeff; Acosta, Jim (September 6, 2018). "Here are the administration officials who deny they wrote The New York Times op-ed". CNN.
  3. ^ @Bencjacobs (September 6, 2018). "A spox for Ben Carson tells me that the HUD Secretary did not write the NYT op-ed" (Tweet). Retrieved September 12, 2018 – via Twitter.
  4. ^ Sherman, Gabriel. ""He's Destroying Your Presidency": Javanka Blamed Kelly for the Times Op-Ed". The Hive. Vanity Fair.
  5. ^ Christnot, Amelia Mavis. "Kevin Hassett Tells New York Times That If He Is 'Anonymous' That They Have His Permission to Reveal His Name".
  6. ^ a b "Trump Says Times Op-Ed 'Virtually' Treason: White House Update". September 6, 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  7. ^ Rooney, Kate (2018-09-07). "Larry Kudlow rips the person who wrote the NYT op-ed, delivers impassioned defense of Trump". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-09-08.
  8. ^ a b "'Haha nope': The many op-ed denials from Trump's inside circle". POLITICO.
  9. ^ "Anonymous Op-Ed Criticizes Trump, Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings". NPR.org.

@BarbadosKen: I'm not vetoing your table, just asking you to work on the table here instead of in the main space. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I converted into a table is some of the denials are not really denials. I also think it is interesting to note whether the denials was made in person or by a spokesperson. I also think that making the list collapsible helps the flow.
It is a lot of effort to put the table together, so unless I see a consensus for its inclusion, I will abandon this effort. BarbadosKen (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The table presently in the text is misleading because criticism of the anonymous author is not denial of authorship. Working on the table here on the talk page for some time, and then replacing the existing table in main space, and also the text leading to the table with something like "who have denied authorship or strongly hinted that they are not the author" would seem reasonable to me. Giving a list without specifying which are outright denials and which are hints would be misleading to the reader - why not give these details given that they are straightforwardly verifiable? But I'm not a main author of the article (neither the Wikipedia article nor "I am ..." :P). (I'm not sure where you want the reflist-talk - probably immediately after the table here on the talk page?) Boud (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A Warning" book by same anonymous source

[edit]

Should the upcoming book by the same source be included in this article, or have its own article? Book record at Amazon and WorldCat: [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.181.22.6 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated, and A Warning (book) has been created. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's Miles Taylor

[edit]

[4] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Followup book" section

[edit]

Do we need to keep a separate section for this single sentence? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good article?

[edit]

Thoughts on how close this article is to meeting Good article criteria? Anyone want to nominate? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, it should pass with some revisions. It could use some expansion around Taylor's coming forward and the book. In terms of who should nominate it, based on the contributions, it should be you, BarbadosKen, Pharos, Gog the Mild, or MelanieN. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down to co-nom, if anyone else is interested, but I don't think I'd take the lead on this one. I have a few other GA noms at the moment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only made one edit, so not me. But if you want to ping me when it is nominated I would consider assessing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, but I have only minimal time available for Wikipedia right now - or at least, not nearly enough to do all the things I want to do - so I will decline. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Am_Part_of_the_Resistance_Inside_the_Trump_Administration&oldid=1256558998"