Talk:2020 Republican National Convention

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Republican National Convention article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Donald Trump Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump 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.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

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.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Due to some bogus arbitration, I have to do this.[edit]

There were so many lies in the second session of the convention, it was unbelievable, and due to some complaints about an extremely objectionable picture I removed, I am forced, until it is reversed to make this recitation:

I made a factual reference to a false claim by a speaker. I put the reference to a transcript of the speech, in the reference section of the chart. Someone didn't notice that there WAS a reference, so s/he put a cite needed thingie there. While I moved it to just under the claim, someone removed it. So I reverted and finished what I was going to do. An apology would be nice. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using the wrong link in my first edit summary. My second edit summary links to WP:BLP. None of the citations justify your note. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiffy sperry: but getting back to the question at hand: Was he lying? Let's Look: College Republicans currently has a membership of 250,000 students with more than 1,800 chapters nationwide. Turning Point USA claimed that last year they had “reached 67,287 students in the spring semester of 2019 according to The Chronicle of Higher Education and according to their [1], they have a presence in 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Now I'm only comparing them to a very similar group to show how this brazen lie is indeed a brazen lie. Oh, BTW, Texas A&M has more than 2,000 cadets in its ROTC program. More than 1,700 colleges have such programs, according to their website. This is easy to find out online. When you make a claim you know is wrong, it's lying. Please put the note back. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. I don't know what he meant by "largest pro-American student organization," and I'm not interested in analyzing his statement here. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's Trumpian excess hyperbole, misleading and false, especially since the entire organization pretty much [2] last November. You asked me a few days ago why I object to the charts? Well, this is part of it. There's an empty "notes" box and if we don't fill it with a short note on what's in the speech, a short one or two-sentence summary, it just looks bad. Having to have proof of what was said in a link is imperative, I agree, either we just have a list and a selective narrative, or we go with a short summary for everybody. Also, if we have a picture we should use it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Arglebargle79:. Two reactions from me:

— [Off topic] If you don't like the ARBCOM decision, you can appeal it, as explained on your talk page. But please don't take every opportunity to whine about it (as in this section and its heading and in your edit summaries); that's also classic Trumpian excess hyperbole.

— [Back on topic] In future, when adding controversial (or, really, any) content, please add the reference citation at the same time, or first. Otherwise, you risk immediate removal of your addition. I would have done that myself, but since we are under 1RR restrictions here, I only tagged it (while you were adding a new ref). Unfortunately, the ref was irrelevant to the claim. If you are going to state that somebody was lying (made a "false claim"), then you'd better have a reliable source citation handy, that says exactly that.

Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. We don't engage in independent analysis in Wikipedia's voice. Any conclusions drawn from someone's statements must be attributed to reliable source. We cannot draw conclusions ourselves. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]