Talk:2020 Republican National Convention

Due to some bogus arbitration, I have to do this.
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)


 * 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)


 * but getting back to the question at hand: Was he lying? Let's Look: College |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 |website, 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)
 * 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)
 * It's Trumpian excess hyperbole, misleading and false, especially since the entire organization pretty much |collapsed 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)
 * Hello, . 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,&mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)