Talk:Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title[edit]

The title should be immediately understandable, without looking up (or reading about) any acronyms. Trump and the Iran deal would work better. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was just recently moved I didn't want to do so again but I agree with this suggestion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tag to move[edit]

@BullRangifer: would you please convince me why you suggested moving the article into my userspace? Saff V. (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saff, thanks for your efforts in creating this article, but I agree with BullRangifer Correction: it wasn't BullRangifer who suggested this; it was Factchecker atyourservice. In your userspace you could at least work on making it neutral (a section titled "Pretext"? Really?) without anyone nominating it for deletion in the meantime. Personally I don't think it will be accepted as a standalone article; I would recommend merging it into Foreign policy of Donald Trump. (I also agree about the title; I didn't know what JCPOA meant and I am a pretty close follower of politics and current events.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saff V.: Having read through it more thoroughly, I see that it is REALLY not ready to be in article space. It is not neutral; that's the main problem. Some sentences don't make sense, with apparently part of the sentence missing. It needs a thorough copy editing; there are many many errors in word choice, capitalization, etc. I will wait a couple of days to see if you can fix these problems; otherwise I will move it to your userspace. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: Thank you for giving me some days to remove problems of the article. I did a number of edits and nominated the article for copyediting. When I wrote context of the article, tried to be neutral (as I tried to report the opinion of people who agree or disagree by addressing the exact name). There is no objection to being neutral about the article but please guide me how it should be done.
On Pretext, I wanted to be said what is the JCPOA at this part. Do you think that I should select another title, Is background good selection?Regards.Saff V. (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twofingered Typist: I really appreciate. Believe me, my attempt is to write a natural article with minimal bugs. I am sorry for the flaws, but I'm grateful to give me advice that I can change the level of the article. Explain the main problem of the article. A lot of time and effort has been devoted to it. Regards!Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Although I am WP:INVOLVED, consensus has clearly been reached after a week's time, with nearly unanimous support for merging these pages. At this point, however, said consensus is that this one will be merged into the withdrawal page. Therefore, as a reviewer, I am closing this discussion and initiating the merger. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 16:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action be merged into Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, then renamed "United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action". The page about Trump's perspective has greater weight and correlates comprehensively to the subject matter, which can and should remain on one individual page. They are essentially the same page, just with one accounting for the events before today, while the other accounts for those moving forward. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge deals with the same timeline and topic. No need for two separate articles. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to avoid an unnecessary content fork. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why not get rid of United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement then? The Iran Deal withdraw is far more notable. You also forget that this is a baby article. FlowerRoad (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, "other stuff exists" is a weak reason to maintain this article. Why merge? Because this is a clear cut content fork, which has a large overlap with the intended target, and is a possible coat-rack to criticise Trump (I'm not a fan, but this should not be expressed in an article). The most direct comparison to the Paris Accord article is United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and the proposal is to merge this article into it. Moreover, while I appreciate your passion, you are bordering on badgering at this stage. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has significant and independent geopolitical notability. The article surpasses existing pages about nations withdrawing from agreements, such as the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and does so in spades. I fail to see why this would qualify for a merge. The impact of this will clearly be felt for years.FlowerRoad (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying it's not big- it's F'ing huge, in fact- but it easily qualifies for a merge because the pages are synonymous; they're about the exact same subject matter, just that one takes place before today and the other takes place after. Why would they not, being this one tremendous subject, be on the same page? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the subject is independently notable. I could say we could merge United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement with Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration? Why not? They are independent topics, with this article representing the policy of the United States. If we remove this one, why not the former? FlowerRoad (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A number of reasons, really. The withdrawal from the Paris deal is but one facet of Trump's environmental perspective, while this withdrawal and his previous posturings are completely synonymous. You have read both pages, correct? You'd note that Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action discusses his previous posturings about this agreement- completely boilerplate- while the new article discusses today's events. What this merger proposal entails is adopting the name of the withdrawal page, so it's really just one topic. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. FlowerRoad (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action into the main article Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Both former articles are under the scope of the latter. In addition, Wikipedia generally frowns on articles with the word "and" in the title. OtterAM (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
ThirdedLihaas (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC) This comment was restored as it was deleted by another user. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the above.FlowerRoad (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a lot of articles under the scope of another? Why America's withdraw from the Paris Agreement deemed independently notable for Wikipedia, while you are suggesting that his withdraw from the Iran Deal is not? I'd argue that this is far more influential than the Paris Agreement withdraw, which businesses and other governments are tackling anyway.FlowerRoad (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JCPOA article is already large enough. The Denial of Re-certification section could be improved and lead to the proposed US withdrawal article. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just stick with the merger of the articles constituting the withdrawal. Talking about merging further is only conflating the discussion- like trying to pass someone who's already passing. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I misunderstood this. FlowerRoad (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the mergebut in the reverse direction The "Trump" named article is ripe to be a BLP vio or a coatrack to complain about Trump, even if he was the prime mover for the action. United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a more neutral title. Anything that is more specific about Trump's foreign policy can go on the page about this adminstration's foreign policy page. --Masem (t) 20:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the OP header on this. I agree about the order of actions (merge content, then rename), for the same effective outcome I was describing. --Masem (t) 20:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the articles and rename to United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. US withdrawal will no doubt have continuing implications beyond Trump's presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarr (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge as proposed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both, please. These pages are Trump-cruft and recentism of the highest order. Not every friggin' detail reported in the news media needs to be on Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia. Not a newspaper. If these pages are too long to merge (and I don't believe they are) then they should be pruned. Vanamonde (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in the United States Criticism of the JCPOA in the United States has been pervasive for many years, and has gotten much independent news coverage. Such opposition was common before the election of Donald Trump, and still is largely independent of him. I see no reason to believe that the relationship between Donald Trump and the JCPOA is notable itself, but the movement as a whole is independently notable from the American actual withdrawal —SpanishSnake (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This article is providing a detailed background of Trump's reaction towards the deal and it would be better to keep it separately due to SIZE concerns. --Mhhossein talk 13:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger. Deb (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger; ambivalent on title, but should be encyclopedic. NPguy (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger as suggested. The "Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" article is mostly junk. The weighty content is in the other article. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, we've got enough articles. No significant content here that can't be placed in the main article. — JFG talk 09:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I support merging to "United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", a more informative title. — JFG talk 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action&oldid=1173628285"