Talk:Wikinews interviews three figures from Donald Trump's political past

To US or not to US
"Wikinews spoke with three people associated with the early political career of U.S. businessman Donald Trump, the front-runner for the U.S. Republican Party's 2016 presidential nomination. Those interviewed include longtime political operative Roger Stone, a close associate of Trump and director of Trump's 2000 presidential exploratory committee; journalist Dave Shiflett, co-writer of Trump's 2000 campaign book The America We Deserve; and political consultant Russ Verney, who served as chairman of the Reform Party of the United States of America which Trump briefly joined."

versus

"Wikinews spoke with three people associated with the early political career of U.S. businessman Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nomination. Those interviewed include longtime political operative Roger Stone, a close associate of Trump and director of Trump's 2000 presidential exploratory committee; journalist Dave Shiflett, co-writer of Trump's 2000 campaign book The America We Deserve; and political consultant Russ Verney, who served as chairman of the Reform Party of the United States of America which Trump briefly joined."

Alongside is a big box headed "2016 United States presidential election" in bold letters.

How is the second version in any way potentially confusing for a reader who might wonder in which country Trump is seeking elected office, assuming of course for present purposes that we are catering for someone who has access to the internet and the ability to read English but who has never heard of Trump? Bencherlite (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First, to clear away some underbrush, the lede should be standalone (something I've explained many times when a lede doesn't make sense unless one reads it together with the headline), to a large extent its first sentence should be, and we certainly don't want someone to have to consult other sources; so the first sentence is all that matters for the question, not the tail end of the paragraph, nor the infobox, nor the internet. One could be a businessperson in one country and run for office in another. The second U.S. is not logically redundant, and is simply being precise on the point; it would be logically redundant to also explicitly specify the country of the presidential nomination.  It's five ascii characters, about two ems' width in proportional font, and two short syllables if pronounced; i.e., low cost for the logically non-redundant extra precision.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So wouldn't it also be precise to say in the first sentence that the "U.S. Republican Party's 2016 presidential nomination" is the campaign for the "U.S. Republican Party's nomination for the 2016 election for President of the United States"? As it stands, the hypothetical reader who's never heard of Trump and who might apparently be confused as to which country he's running for election in might also be left wondering "president of what - the Republican Party itself?" Well, yes, the additional words would make the opening sentence more precise, but ridiculously so, since we obviously don't need 3 "US/United States" in one sentence. But as we are assuming that readers already know what "2016 presidential nomination" means, without consulting other sources or indeed anything beyond the opening sentence of this story, why can we not work on the basis that the Republican Party campaigning for the US Presidential elections in question is, unsurprisingly, the US one, not the Republican Party of Somewhere Else? Bencherlite (talk) (from alt account) 20:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Election for party president seems to me below the threshold of plausibility; one would think if it were party president that would be said explicitly. During review, I added the second U.S. because the small bit of additional precision seemed to me worth what seemed to me an extremely tiny cost (likely we disagree about the size of the cost, too).  I don't think it makes a truly vast difference either way to the article, but having made that call during the review I'm not going to later pretend it's not my preference.  Unusually, I didn't self-sight my un-removal, at least for now (there being no other edits pending on the article), leaving the door open for a third reviewer to weigh in.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The third person was in fact the original author, who didn't think that "US" was needed. Bencherlite (talk) (from alt account) 21:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's plausible (with the trivial quibble that I don't claim it's needed, I merely have a mild preference for it). Though the reporter didn't challenge the review-edit &mdash; possibly didn't notice, or possibly felt, like me, that it just isn't that big a deal.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So - let's get this straight - you don't think it's necessary, you feel it isn't that big a deal, but you added it, reverted my removal of it, and defended your position at great length? Great Scott, I'm glad you're not defending something you believe in strongly... As I do think it is a big deal to have redundancy in the opening sentence, when it is utterly clear that the President of the USA is a position for which the US Republican Party, not the A.N.Other Republican Party, campaigns, perhaps I should just redo my edit. Bencherlite (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I reviewed your removal of it. Not the same social circumstances as a traditional revert.  I was asked to render a judgement, and I already had rendered a judgement; and I was cautious about it.  Flaggedrevs allows gradations of action that can be used to help avoid possible edit (or even "wheel") wars, if reviewers aren't too eager to sight (we were both conservative in this case).  All entirely reasonable.  And yes, in discussion you've convinced me; if you don't redo the edit, I probably will.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. (The notification system told me it was a revert, which is why I used the term.) Bencherlite (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)