Talk:Fire and Fury

Open RfCs and surveys

• #Example

Current consensus

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per the currently active Arbitration Remedies placed on this article by an administrator. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Fire and Fury#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

1.

2.

Subscription needed sources

Info I added was deleted with the note, "WSJ requires subscription". I got this info from a google search, in full, but when used here as a source one does get the "subscription needed" note for the full article. I see this as a huge problem for WP and it's only going to get worse. However, Jimbo, who does zero editing, sees it as no problem (per a recent post on his talk page). What to do? Gandydancer (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added two quotes to the citation template using |quote=. I don't think we do much more. I also reviewed the added content and can confirm that nothing was cherrypicked. I have access to The Wall Street Journal through one or more databases (which means that I'm unable see images or captions and such) and if there's something that I can do, please ping me. Politrukki (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason not to use subscription sites. That's why there's {{subscription required}} for use in the reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline against using sources behind a paywall or a membership wall, however, if we can cite sources that are freely accessible, I think that is preferable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If a subscription site has superior or high quality content, we should be all means include it, period. The fact that someone might need to pay money to view a source is no different than they might have to pay money to buy a book, or buy a bus ticket to visit their library. Laziness is no excuse for quality sourcing. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Critical consensus

Now that the dust has settled a bit, a number of things seem clear - most observers agree with its overall picture of WH dysfunction, but that many of the juiciest scoops are just rumors that more reputable journalists had previously heard of but couldn't nail down their satisfaction. See the current material in the article, plus others such as "That was the writer Michael Wolff, in his dubiously sourced but indubitably bestselling book Fire and Fury..." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/nikki-haley-trump-rumors/552080/ "this many of them suggests a reportorial sloppiness that cannot be wished away or ignored. The sad part is, whatever his fact-checking failures, the consensus among Washington reporters seems to be that Wolff gets it exactly right in his overarching portrait of a chaotic, dysfunctional White House" http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article193850019.html " "As factual reporting, Wolff's 'Fire and Fury' is dubious" https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-tldr-guide-to-michael-wolffs-fire-and-fury-w515359 plus various others in the Does anyone object to summarising this in the lead? NPalgan2 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction Request

I was looking at the tweet on the article that was authored by President Trump. I was wondering if it would be a violation to edit (or add for clarity in brackets) words in to make it easier on the eyes.

Thank you for your consideration.

AnimosityAnimalEdits (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)