100.15.136.71

June 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Andre🚐 19:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for the reminder about the purpose of the Talk page. I intended my comments not to be general discussion regarding Trump, but instead to outline possible improvements of the article to consider by discussing aspects of the overall conceptual organization of this article, which is about the veracity-vel-non of statements by Trump. 100.15.136.71 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I closed the topic because it was too vague and non-specific. The point isn't to opine on the topic. The point is to make concrete specific statements about the article and its text. Andre🚐 19:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't begrudge you for closing the topic. I probably didn't express my thinking well.

My aim was really not to opine about Donald Trump or his veracity or untruthfulness. Instead, based on my initial reading of the existing article, I thought it would be valuable to open an editorial discussion of certain conceptual or philosophical elements that importantly underlie the article. Such a discussion, I thought, might help clarify our understanding of what we mean by "veracity," "mendacity," "exaggeration," "bad faith," etc., in the context of the article; might lead to exploration of whether the article could benefit from considering whether patterns of name-calling and other slur-laden utterances might be connected to the issue of veracity-vel-non; might highlight the distinction in speech act theory between false statements of fact and broken promises; and might advance our collective thinking about various other conceptual dimensions at the heart of the article). My intent (even if badly executed) was to invite discussion about improving the organization and/or the content of the article. I thought it wouldn't be necessary to propose only very specific edits in advance, before developing such a discussion. Actually, I was concerned that proposing very specific edits right off the bat might distract from the more fundamental conceptual discussions. I still think that specific edits and specific suggestions about how to improve the organization of the article might emerge from such a discussion. Where is the correct forum for a discussion of the conceptual underpinnings of this article? 100.15.136.71 (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for conceptual discussion. That's considered original thought. We follow what is verifiable in reliable sources. Andre🚐 21:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand and agree that editorial discussions (including conceptual discussions about editorial approaches) should not be included in a Wikipedia article itself. But the topic I opened wasn't within an article, was it? I believe it was on a "Talk" page, which, in my experience, is often a forum for conceptual discussion about how an article should be written. Doesn't a "Talk" page concern the editing and organization of an article? Doesn't this often include conceptual discussion? It never occurred to me that the "no original thought" rule would apply to "Talk" pages. 100.15.136.71 (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---