User talk:Bob drobbs

Language in the lead "As fews as possible" vs "majority"

Hi Bob,

Given that you started the RFC at Special:PermanentLink/1267363651#RFC_about_a_recently_added_claim_about_Zionism and that you have now started the discussion at Talk:Zionism#Language_in_the_lead_"As_fews_as_possible"_vs_"majority" relitigating the close of the RFC that you started, less than a month after the close, I would heavily encourage you to WP:DROPTHESTICK.
Consensus can change, but a month after you started the previous discussion on the exact same topic is not the time to be attempting to force through your preferred version. TarnishedPath^talk 07:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I strongly disagree with this characterization that I'm trying to "force through my preferred version". How about some WP:GF? I posted 3 possible versions, two of which were not mine, and solicited a request for others to post their own improved versions. If you see some other way to make the text better I strongly encourage you to post it.

After all of the topic-bans, I'm hoping that work here will be more cooperative and consensus will be easier to reach. I would like to work with editors, like you, to improve the site. Can you legitimately tell me that you believe that sentence is as perfect as it can be? If not, then how about looking through all of the references and seeing if there are ways that it can be improved?

I also disagree with your characterization that we're relitigating the "exact same topic" as the RFC. Clearly "remove this sentence for POV violations" and "improve this sentence" are not synonymous.

You and others believe that I didn't wait long enough before putting up suggested changes which were based on discussions within the RFC. What then do you see as an appropriate timeframe? If I set this aside for another month will the complaints disappear? Or will we just go through this same thing again?

Finally, I did just notice that I'm not the only one who has tried to fix issues with this sentence after the RFC closed. DancingOwl posted a detailed analysis of the sources which led to a very lengthy discussion here: [1]. Bob drobbs (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you legitimately tell me that you believe that sentence is as perfect as it can be? If not, then how about looking through all of the references and seeing if there are ways that it can be improved?

Yes because I !voted the exact sentence as it presently appears in the article (you even quoted it in the RFC so as to remove any doubt) didn't violate NPOV and that it should remain as did 17 other editors. That is exactly what the closer determined to be consensus.

To your question on how long would be long enough. Less than one month certainly isn't long enough. For me, the length of time that would be long enough to not be disruptive would be when there has been some material change in how the sources address the issue, but I expect others might have a different answer to that question. Asking the same question repeatedly because you don't like the previous result/s is not the level of behaviour that is expected in a contentious topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 08:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Have you looked through the analysis done by DancingOwl? Bob drobbs (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

They participated in the RFC and their view was against the consensus. Them relitigating it doesn't change consensus either. TarnishedPath^talk 08:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Yes, but are you aware that DancingOwl did a lengthy analysis of the sources? Did you look at it? Or are you basing your opinion that the sentence is perfect without having looked at his work?

I just copied and pasted his work into the current discussion on the Zionism talk page so it can more easily be reviewed. Bob drobbs (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

They had their input in the RFC and consensus outweighed them. It doesn't get any more straightforward than that. TarnishedPath^talk 09:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Ps, can you please sign the comments that you've added about sourcing (even if you need to attribute putting the information together to another editor). TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I accidentally left off the signatures when adding the tables by hand. Thanks for letting me know. Fixed. Bob drobbs (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

All good. TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk: Donald Trump lead sentence discussion

Hi Bob drobbs,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out about a consensus debate currently happening on Donald Trump’s page, as it mirrors a similar situation we encountered during Joe Biden’s presidency. Four years ago, we agreed on a consensus to keep the lead sentence format, which I believe was both fair and sensible. Specifically, the line for Joe Biden was: "...who has been the 46th and current president of the United States since 2021." Looking back, I see that you were in favor of maintaining this as the status quo. Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RfC: "serving as" vs. "is".

I believe we should apply this same structure to Donald Trump’s page, just as we did for Joe Biden and Barack Obama before him, to ensure consistency and clarity. This format clearly conveys the order ("47th"), incumbency ("current"), and start date ("since 2025"), which helps maintain uniformity across presidential biographies.

Given your involvement and support in that earlier consensus, your insights would be incredibly valuable in the current discussion. It’s important that we uphold the same standards regardless of the officeholder, and I’d appreciate it if you could weigh in, share your thoughts, and cast a vote. Here is the current discussion and vote underway: Talk:Donald Trump, Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Thanks a lot, and I hope you’ll consider contributing. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It's long of a conversations for me to try to sort though all of it and weigh in right now.

I still believe that "is President" is preferable to "serves as President" for clarity and length, and skimming through the vote totals it does seem one of the options with "is" is winning. Bob drobbs (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Your edit at Special:Diff/1272323429

was directly against what the closer determined to be consensus at Special:PermanentLink/1267363651#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism. To quote "there is a consensus that the sentence referenced in the OP is compliant with NPOV and should remain in "the lead and the body". WP:DROPTHESTICK or the next step is WP:AE. TarnishedPath^talk 05:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
My apologies. I relooked at your edit and I can see you weren't removing information you were adding quotes. I still however don't think it was a good edit. In fact I'd say that the article has to many quotes in the references and should be just giving page numbers. I'll thing about whether I'll raise that in talk or whether it is unlikely to get support. TarnishedPath^talk 09:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPathThe text and the references including quotes were added by someone who has been topic-banned for POV pushing. I think it's clear that the intent to was to cherry pick quotes to push a very particular point of view.

I would be 100% okay with either adding more text from the sources to better reflect their actual content, and maybe quotes from other sources in order to create balance, or as you suggest replacing all of the quotes with page numbers (much preferable).

If you decide to put up that suggestion on the talk page, I'll definitely support it. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of who added the content, we've had a RFC on it. TarnishedPath^talk 23:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for response

Hi, @Bob drobbs. I asked you a question in a talk page discussion here. After you didn't answer I pinged you and asked again [2]. Since you still haven't answered I'm now asking you here to respond at that discussion. Please respond at the talk pge and not here so that others in the discussion can see your answer. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS Responded on the talk page. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of March 2025 Venezuelan deportations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article March 2025 Venezuelan deportations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2025 Venezuelan deportations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 20:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Heya, wanted to mention this. --Kizor 18:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sanity check

Hey. My attempt to straighten out the lead of the deportations article is now live, and I wanted to ask if you could see if it's sensible and accurate.

I'm pestering you since I didn't want to bring this up on the talk page and turn it into a whole thing of explaining why I'm against this recommendation from editor A and support integrating that recommendation from editor B with these modifications. But I do want to call on someone with sense, and you should get first dibs on telling me I screwed up considering that I just ruined your word tweaks and paragraph break.

The part I'm trepid about ("trepid?" really?) is the ending. Is it accurate and fair to use NPR's words, "the proclamation also leaves no time to contest the government's claims that people are members of a criminal gang", to write the powers of the act "allow the deportation of non-citizens without the chance to defend themselves from the government's claim that they are members of the gang"? My answer's yes. I'm just not happy to find myself saying something so bonkers as, the US is throwing people in a Central American prison without consulting a judge about it. I could ask about that part on the talk page. "The government's claim" could also be "accusation": shorter, but also sharper, could be too accusatory. --Kizor 03:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kizor Honestly, I think it does still read a bit like an op-ed. How about completely getting rid of the "sweeping powers" sentence, and merging just key parts of it with the final paragraph. Maybe something like?

These deportations happened without the accused having a chance to argue(?) that they weren't part of a gang, and on March 24, James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the government cannot deport anyone under the Alien Enemies Act without a hearing Bob drobbs (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I was gonna ask "What if I wrote a section about due process real quick so that the lead was only summarizing what the section explained in detail?" but that was kind of a silly what-if, so I wrote one. I also tossed the words "sweeping powers" and combined the crucial sentence with the one about expulsions. I removed "NPR noted", do you think putting it back would sound slightly less like an op-end? --Kizor 20:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kizor Maybe I'm missing something, but from a historical perspective what relevance does NPR or the ACLU's thoughts on the subject matter as compared to the judge agreeing with them and ruling that they need to have due process? And that's already in the lead. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

My scribblings can and should be updated with recent developments. The document where I collect sources is out of date, the ones for this were largely from the 16th-19th. I could've updated it, then written this, but (1) this was hard enough to write for my non-law-studying ass as it was, (2) in the time that took the situation could've changed, requiring another update that let things change again, etcetera.

The NPR quote is the best source I've found for citing something we have to get across: there is no defense. Once you're accused, it's off to the Central American prison people go into but they don't come back from, according to the administration that built it. We say they don't get a hearing plenty of times, but that's not synonymous. Our readers are aware that imprisonment without trial is A Bad Thing, we wouldn't need to state why; I don't think deportation without a hearing is as intuitive, even though the outcome's the same. I figure people know this stuff at a level where they have questions like "What's a hearing for, specifically?", "What's the difference between a hearing and a trial?" (I just had to look that one up, and I'm naive but I don't think I'm that much behind Joe public on civics), "Are there other opportunities to make your case that you're not a gang member, or is it just the hearing? Don't they get that chance with the interviews and things? After all, surely the government wouldn't throw people's lives away like trash." I figure this is stuff they mostly know, or are aware of at some level, or know as tidbits but wouldn't be able to enumerate or put its significance or implications into words. So NPR's and the human rights organizations' words' historical relevance is as as important context slash background information. NPR states the crucial part, paraphrased for the readers in the lead and more in its own words in the Due Process section to talk more about the how. But now that you mention it those two are near-identical, yes, and should be changed. The ACLU delineates for our reader what, precisely, is the issue about not getting a hearing. American Immigration Council restates the crucial part so that it's not just covered as an offhand reference from a single source, and makes it clear that no, there are no other opportunities. Amidst all the sources about what the administration could do, the Immigrant Defenders Law Center adds that these are not "could", they're things it did do and is doing. It also states what happened to one of the deportees who's not covered in the deportees section since we don't know their name.

I only hope the fact that this is a Trump article isn't skewing my view of how much the average person knows. --Kizor 14:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Userfied pages

Hi there. Just to note that you don't need to do this to preserve a page: User:Bob drobbs/sandbox. If a page is deleted, you may ask the closing admin to userfy a copy for you, and they will do so. This is better than taking your own copy, because the userfied version will maintain the edit history in compliance with the Wikipedia license. Making a copy /paste copy is an unattributed WP:COPYWITHIN and could not go back to mainspace without that being addressed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If that page ends up being deleted, I may appeal the deletion not really under the concerns that single page is gone, but because of the idea that every article which uses news articles as secondary sources doesn't belong on this site.

I don't think this is supported by policy, despite this existence of an essay which focuses on an academic definition of "primary source". I also think it's is a terrible idea which could result in a large part of this site being deleted. What percent of articles on this site do you think are written based on news reports?

I'm storing a copy of the article solely for my own purposes to help write up that appeal... _if_ we get to that point. Bob drobbs (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll keep the deletion discussion on the deletion page. If you choose to challenge the close, note that you should first speak to the closer on their talk page. Only if you have no joy there should you take it to WP:DRV. I'll also note that I am a touch confused by your stance on this one, considering your recent nomination of Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre and 9 July 2024 Gaza attacks, both of which you cited WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. I note that one closed as merge and one is trending the same way. I have already indicated I'd support a merge as a WP:ATD. Is there an appropriate merge target? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I've been clear and consistent with my views, but to share more details:

• The 9th July attacks only had coverage within 24 hours of the event. That one seems very black and white and it looks like we have total agreement that it's appropriate to just merge these into a list.
• Likewise with the Az-Zayyem checkpoint shooting, an Israeli was killed. Breaking news then the story disappeared. Totally not notable: deletion discussion here
• The school attack was more shades of gray. But it only got coverage from fewer than 10 sources over a 2 week period after people found the bodies. This felt like a limited amount of coverage for a very limited duration.
• By comparison, the Junction attack and it's aftermath got a large amount of coverage (50+ sources?) over an extended period of time. It got attention of government bodies and elected officials. The founding of a settlement in retaliation is a real-world result of this event. To me, this clearly fits the standards for GNG and LASTING.

If there are any attacks against Palestinians which get 50+ news stories written by them over a period of months, with 3rd party governments making statements, you'll definitely find me also saying "Keep". Bob drobbs (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@SirfurboyAlso with sincere curiosity, if you think that all of the sources for both the school attack and the junction attack are primary sources instead of secondary, then why would you support a merge at all?

Shouldn't all of this info just be completely wiped away from wikipedia for lack of coverage in what you consider to be secondary sources?

This is the slippery slope I see in applying your definition, where we end up with much of the entire site being subject to deletion. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Simply: WP:GNG says (my emphasis):

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when...

Failure to meet notability for a standalone article does not mean that we cannot mention the subject on a suitable page, where relevant. If we decide, say, a school is notable, and that school featured in, say, an episode of a TV show, then we would mention this in a sentence on the school article, even though "Frogmorton School in Power Turtles" would clearly be a non notable subject for an article that would have no secondary sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)