Talk:Fear: Trump in the White House

Obvious error in the current form of the article
Talk about your challenge to NPV... Anyway, the current form has an obvious error in the sentence "Additionally, Chief of Staff John F. Kelly refuted the book's claim that he had referred to Trump as an idiot." The verb "refuted" is clearly wrong. Can't prove a negative. Suitable verb would be something like "denied" or "rejected", but I'm guessing we won't get to "sworn under oath" or anything along those lines... While I think the book almost surely deserves an article, I think NPV is gonna get strained. Shanen (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the nice thing about Wikipedia is that if you think there is an obvious error, you can change it. A second, common definition of "refute" is "to deny the truth or accuracy of." I'm not sure if "refute" in its current usage is so cut-and-dry "clearly wrong," but if you think there's a better and more neutral word, please make the edit. Enwebb (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I made the edit changing to "denied" as it does not have this multiple connotations to cause confusion. starship.paint ~  KO   04:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Genre
There's been a bit of back and forth over this--just now someone changed the book's genre to journalism and changed it back to non-fiction. I don't have much of an opinion either way, but it's a good idea maybe to hammer this out. I'm also going to place a warning in the article: whoever changes this to "fiction" will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't enforce DS without logging it. w umbolo   ^^^  10:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You log DS after enforcing it. User:Drmies's edit is not the same thing as say adding a 1RR restriction to the page, which would require an edit notice, change to the talk page notice, and, yes, a log. Doug Weller  talk 11:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Wumbolo, why are you trying to catch me on some technicality when you know that there is only one reason for someone to change this to "fiction", and that reason has to do with disruptive partisanship? This is a very narrow warning for a single type of edit, and even without DS an admin can block for this kind of stuff. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not following process for enforcing obvious restrictions is a slippery slope. w umbolo   ^^^  14:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , there can be no such specific DS restriction that should be logged. If you search the AE log you'll only find for AP 1RR/Consensus/Civility plus User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions. This is just a standard warning about disruptive editing. It doesn't even necessarily refer to the sanction regime, just to common sense about what's disruptive. Doug Weller  talk 16:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Grammar
"Woodward based the book on hundreds of hours interviews with members of the Trump administration." Would someone please correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.208.0.156 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)