Talk:Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information

What Trump Really Told Kislyak After Comey Was Canned

Great details. Should be added.Casprings (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/trump-intel-slip Casprings (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Reevaluate this article

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.

---

Now that some time has passed since this incident, it seems clear that there is no lasting notability. Should AFD be revisited for this article? Additionally, this article's title includes "disclosures," but there is still mainly the one listed, with simple footnotes describing two others. Pinging MrX and MjolnirPants in particular because of comments (If news coverage of subsides by the end of the AfD, I will gladly change my !vote to merge. and So if there are still stories being written about this in 6 months, that'd be an obvious keep. But if not, then we need to return to this discussion and determine whether this is something worth preserving. respectively) they made in the AFD. As it stands this article could simply stand alone as a news article, which Wikipedia is NOT. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If the material can be condensed and merged into another article, I might support it. The subject has been covered recently in at least one source. [1] - MrX 🖋 19:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

What would the merge target be? PackMecEng (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr Ernie - I suggest you ping more widely based on the | Point of this article? discussion above and participants in the JFG mentioned prior AFD that was an overwhelming Keep. Personally, I think the paragraph about this at Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Russia_2 is enough and other than a couple of good cites from here I wouldn't want to add more text to the Presidency article - it's already a bit much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I also see above that Power~enwiki also had the same concerns. I'm not sure who I should ping - everyone who participated in the AFD discussion as well as all the other participants on this page? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll ping: JFG, Neutrality, Mr, User:Lasersharp, User:Icewhiz, User:MjolnirPants, and User:Power~enwiki as the ones who did varied non-trivial and non-BS input before, covering the mix of less here, more here, or something else. (e.g. Merge into a part of broader Russia-US relations or to Information Security under Trump articles.) If these 7 come to general agreement what to do then I think it likely to work in general. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the test for a non-trivial non-BS input? Not this, I guess: [2] SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. While this is TOTALLY irrelevant to whether we keep an article or not, it's still interesting to check the last 90 days of page views. It's generally increasing. (Forget the outliers for yesterday and today.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you all realize that this is a huge violation of WP:PRESERVE? We even keep articles about obsolete topics. This is, at the very least, historical. Current notability is a matter of opinion and has zero bearing on whether it should be kept or not.

At so recent a time after the events (the consequences of which are still very active and ongoing), no one can judge it as having "no lasting notability". Even in 50 years it would be an irrelevant question. We would still keep it. That's what we do here. Notability at the time of creation is all that counts.

This whole section is an illegitimate suggestion and should be closed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to, very reluctantly, vote keep for now. There's still no good merge target. Maybe by the end of the year there will be something like Donald Trump's disregard for presidential norms or Media hysterias of the Donald Trump administration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Seems like there are two targets this could go to. Either Presidency of Donald Trump or maybe Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, I would say presidency of Russia would be a better fit. PackMecEng (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• ....or, rather than "presidency of Russia", how about Presidency of United States? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• There's no "all the Trump-Russia noise in one place" article, and there probably won't be. I don't think this is important enough for Presidency of Donald Trump to cover this in the depth some editors will want. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it is a bit of a pickle since it did not turn into anything significant. Though there is some question on how much should be covered and how much some will want it to be covered, in each direction. I am a little surprised we do not have a generic article for this crap as well. The closest I could find it Russian interference but it is not a perfect fit there either. Sure we don't want to just burn this one down? PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Shocked to see this discussion and agree with Bull Rangifer. We don't decide lasting notability. We decide notability. We can't see into the future and so should not be pretending we can. If its notable now per our guidelines we can have an article on it. This isn't a paper encyclopedia so we aren't sort of space. And agree there can be historical interest.Sheesh.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC))

Actually, that's not correct. The basic policy here is Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY - notability is intended to be permanent, and we do at least try to "decide lasting notability", as many deletion debates demonstrate. But the policy recognises we may not always get this right. In such cases, as here, I'm likely to generally support a keep, as I think the question is usually adequately scrutinized at the time of creation - The 2017 afd on this article is a good example. Heaven knows that Trump's presidency is going to keep historians & readers busy for decades to come. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Not what the guideline says, it says,"Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.", which I believe means we decide notability in the here and now and not whether a subject will have ongoing coverage or lasting notability. We cannot see into the future.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it says "ongoing coverage" is not needed for "lasting notability", which is obviously the case - the difference between news and history. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing coverage is not needed for lasting nobility which means notability can be determined in the present with out any evidence of whether that notability can be determined for the future. You are interpreting this in exactly the opposite way from written I believe.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC))

Seems clear enough to me: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". You seem to be arguing that it is temporary. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP mentions that reconsiderations may occur. The article for Coveffe was an example of later on folks deleted it. There seems a lot of flaps that come and go so this may something where WP:SNOWFLAKE applies? Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP is the policy we're discussing. It does contain this phrase ("reassessment of the evidence of notability") which may be a bit ambiguous. Per my understanding of Littleolive oil's comments below (worth reading), that phrase shouldn't be interpreted to mean that notability (as a requirement for article creation) is negatively affected because of less attention later in time. No, it doesn't. Lessening attention has no bearing on whether we keep an article.

It would be wrong to use waning notability as a measure for the later deletion of an existing article which was created on the basis of legitimate notability at the time of its creation. That is permanent.

"If today we establish notability then it is notable per Wikipedia for all time. Notability means today, right now, we have notability. We do not have to look into the future and try to judge whether that article will be notable in years to come." Littleolive oil

Therefore the phrase must mean that if a serious (not deletionist/censorship) question of whether there actually was notability "at the time of the article's creation" is raised, one can perform a "reassessment of the evidence of notability". IOW, if an article was created on a deceptive evidentiary basis (maybe with false claims of notability based on too few RS or using spurious sources) which is later discovered, an AfD could determine that such was the case and delete the article. That would be proper.

It would not be proper to start an AfD because, at a later date, some editor thought that the subject no longer possessed any continuing notability. That would be wrong. The only question to ask regarding notability is "Was the subject notable at the time, as documented by multiple RS?" If so, whatever happens later on is irrelevant.

If a year later (or ten years later) the page view statistics have stagnated at next to nothing, we still keep the article. Wikipedia does not stay at a certain size, it grows endlessly. It always keeps its articles. Many become historical records with nearly zero current notability, but we never delete history. Our job is to document it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Gosh no. This is what I'm reading. If today we establish notability then it is notable per Wikipedia for all time. Notability means today, right now, we have notability. We do not have to look into the future and try to judge whether that article will be notable in years to come. Further, we cannot use presumed notability in the future to establish notability for today which is a kind of circular argument for notability. But what occurs to me is that if an experienced editor like you has come to this reading and understanding how many more have, and how many read this as I do. I actually think we should do an RFA and clarify what the guideline is saying.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC))

• Littleolive oil, you're a clear thinker. Definition and delimitation are both important concepts, and we need to do that better for Wikipedia's unique use of the word "notability" as it relates to article creation. It appears there is some ambiguous wording which leaves the door open for confusion and misinterpretation. We need to identify those words and close the door by improving them.

I totally agree with you that the "current notability" justifying creation of an article is the only relevant concern regarding its notability, because thoughts about "future notability" involve OR, CRYSTAL, and "editorial" POV (a violation of NPOV), and we should close the door to any of those types of editorial speculations. Current (time of creation) RS determine notability. Period. You put it so well:

"If today we establish notability then it is notable per Wikipedia for all time. Notability means today, right now, we have notability. We do not have to look into the future and try to judge whether that article will be notable in years to come." Littleolive oil

Those words should be enshrined in the policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Littleolive oil - We do not have to look into the future because it is now the past -- we now have a greater knowledge to reconsider per WP:NTEMP the prior WP:PAGEDECIDE, and more options than existed before. From the responses here I'd say WP editors are still interested but that outside it has been shown to have had no subsequent significance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• No way. I suspect that Littleolive oil will agree that Waning coverage does not affect original notability at the time of article creation. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes a one-way assembly line with articles getting added at one end and being deleted at the other because page views have dwindled. Historians will curse us if we do that, and editors will realize that their efforts are in vain. No, we capture notable moments in time and preserve them forever.

WP:PRESERVE even reassures editors that their good faith efforts are not in vain, not just for articles they create, but for any good faith, properly-sourced, content they add. As much as possible, it should be improved/used, and not carelessly deleted. (That doesn't mean we keep all content. There are rules for that.)

Wikipedia is not paper, and we seek to document the sum total of human knowledge using reliable source coverage to determine notability. For current events, notability is determined by current coverage. For past events, it isn't even current coverage or attention which is the criteria, but the existence of reliable source coverage, even in the absence of any current attention or any current notability. Historians are welcome to work here.

When a new article properly passes the notability test, then it should not be summarily and carelessly deleted, and never because there is waning coverage or attention at a later date. To delete it on "notability" grounds, there should be suspicion, and evidence, that the original acceptance was based on false evidence. In that case, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, a "reassessment of the evidence of notability" is in order to confirm the suspicion. That "reassessment" is not because of waning attention or coverage. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• with regard to ongoing coverage and related issues
  • August 2017: Trump amplified a Fox story that included information about spy satellite intel on North Korea, while Nikki Haley was saying she wouldn't discuss it as it was leaked classified information, and condemning Fox for including that kind of information in a story (CNN ref)
  • Nov 2017 piece in Vanity Fair Blum, Howard (November 22, 2017). "Exclusive: What Trump Really Told Kislyak After Comey Was Canned". Vanity Fair.) discussed for example in Haaretz ("Report: Trump Revealed Israeli Commando and Mossad Operation in Syria to Russians". Haaretz. 23 November 2017.) about what Trump disclosed to the Russians in May.
  • Feb 2018 (most recently), folks may or may not agree that the following is on-point, but the issue of Trump administration staff with interim security clearances, to whom classified information has been disclosed, has been discussed to death, eg Kushner's, following the Porter firing (a ref: Davis, Julie Hirschfeld; Haberman, Maggie (20 February 2018). "Kushner Resists Losing Access as Kelly Tackles Security Clearance Issues". The New York Times.)

-- Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep WP:N is established by coverage by WP:RS. Coverage is national and widespread. There has been no change. The article is and will always be WP:N because of that fact.Casprings (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I have never seen Wikipedia as an assembly line where, as new articles are added at one end, older ones are deleted at the other....and this one isn't even old! "If today we establish notability then it is notable per Wikipedia for all time. Notability means today, right now, we have notability. We do not have to look into the future and try to judge whether that article will be notable in years to come." User:Littleolive oil -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. While I am saying we cannot see the future to determine notability the even stronger argument per Bull Rangifer is that attempting to do so violates our own policies and guidelines such as POV and OR. I'd take that one step further and suggest that we are an encyclopedia basing content on published sources. Generally we don't have access to sources from the future.:O).(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC))
• Keep + Query per NOTTEMPORARY + What's with the !voting. If someone wants to delete the article WP:AFD is where the discussion should be taking place to get broad input. There is no such thing as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-TO-DELETE. Jbh ^Talk 14:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It's probably my fault for starting the bolded-voting, but this is a Keep/Merge discussion (which does belong on the talk page). Nobody has suggested deleting it entirely at this point, AFAIK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Coverage is not Notability, and Notability is not permanent -- Pages are not necessarily forever - Good to straighten that out ? It's simply a fact that the WP:NTEMP considerations happen and for a number of ways something being a separate article gets looked at again and WP:PAGEDECIDE sometimes shifts over time and articles get moved/merged/grouped or deleted. By WP:NRVE "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." If it was just a viral flap or WP:POPULARPAGE, then WP:NOTNEWS of most news events do not qualify as enduring WP:SUSTAINED happens and it gets deleted. If it turns out to be one-of-many WP:SNOWFLAKE, as this one may be, then it gets lumped with others in one group article. Or maybe it is WP:RECENTISM and will fail the WP:10YT. I think there have been 2,774 AFDs on Trump articles, and 892 Trump articles remain. Weekly media coverage -- included dead articles Covfefe, James Comey Testimony, Inauguration day protests, List of Republicans opposing Trump, Donald Trump prophecy, Trump (comics), Little Rocket Man, Never Trump, Trumps Handshakes, Obama-Trump fued, Chessmaster meme, CNN beating video, Donald Trump resistance movement, Trumperism, Girther movement, and on and on. That I could find enough cites for Trump ties to make an article isn't the point -- the point is if whether there is a better idea. (p.s. I think in this case here is ...) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Let's "straighten this out", that this is your opinion: "Coverage is not Notability, and Notability is not permanent -- Pages are not necessarily forever." Then you immediately link to WP:NTEMP which says the very opposite: "Notability is not temporary". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a good example of WP:10YT. PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's all well-sourced. So what would be the harm in keeping it even if it's not actively covered in media recently? Why not err on the side of keeperism? SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No doubt most of the sources are just fine and it did receive a lot of coverage for a short time when it became public. But since then almost nothing, which makes the original reporting just look like sensationalism instead of something actually important. Just my 3 cents. PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Right, but we are not really in the business of deciding "sensationalism" where there's conventional media coverage and high quality sourcing. So then what harm is it to leave the article in place and expand when/if additional RS are found. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I am a bit confused, is this article up for AfD or not? If you want the article deleted then please go-to the proper venue, other than that the discussion should be focused on a way to improve the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The way I read it is as a pre-merge discussion? I could be wrong though. PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems like nobody really knows where this discussion is going. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's going nowhere, so what else is new? SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• A reminder. Keep in mind that WP:10YT is a personal essay, not a policy or guideline. It's about writing (not deleting) so that there is enough detail to ensure that, when the article is read in ten years, it will still make sense. It's easy to fail to include such detail, because we are looking at current events with "recentism glasses" and don't include what we take for granted. Readers in ten years don't know the contextual facts and events, and we should remember to include them. So include more than enough, not less than enough. Think about those readers down the line, ten years from now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 23 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. See no general agreement below to rename this article. This request is about three weeks old, relisted once and would be eligible for a third relisting after three weeks, so it's time to close. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this name change. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information → Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia – The title was changed following an August 2017 RfC, which anticipated other significant disclosures of classified information by Donald Trump. Almost one year later, no such disclosure happened, or none was reported. Therefore the article should return to its original, correct title, which matches its actual contents and is more precise by mentioning Russia. If/when another disclosure happens, it will possibly get its own article. — JFG ^talk 05:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 23:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, this was on the first page of my Google search. So was this. I didn't look further. Dekimasuよ! 06:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Did these leaks reach notability? — JFG ^talk 09:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: The content that was "Crystal" was removed by a slow moving edit war without discussion. This is POV pushing and does not belong here. The move discussion was clear about the consensus.Casprings (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would note that the RFC provides clear consensus to keep the extra content.Casprings (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

We are a year later; WP:consensus can change. I had not seen the extra content about other leaks before filing this move request. — JFG ^talk 10:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool beans. Well what happened was removal of the content, over reverts, without discussion. Then this move. Let’s close this, and have another RFC on rather the article should be about just Russia or russia and other disclosures.Casprings (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to keep this open, you need to struck your Crystal argument part of your OP.Casprings (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, not really. What happened is that you restored today[3] material that had been deleted by Politrukki[4][5] and Srich32977[6][7][8] in March. Those edits have remained unchallenged for 4 months until I opened the move request. We should discuss separately whether this material is due. — JFG ^talk 19:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed content that had been off the article for about six months. My first removal was based on this discussion. The second one was because the content was about disclosures by Trump administration, not specifically by Trump. I see that I was pinged to the RFC, but did not participate. I don't remember whether I saw the RFC when I was doing my removals, but I think my removals were consistent with the RFC result.

@JFG: as there is a dispute about the old content, I would recommend withdrawing this move request. Politrukki (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Would Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information be better? Singular and shorter? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No objection to that, although "to Russia" makes it more precise. — JFG ^talk 19:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here is the problem: If we use "classified info/material/intel" in the article title, then we must restrict the scope of the article to releases of info which are formally classified, per the United States government classification system. The alternative is to rename the article to something like Trump's disclosure of sensitive/confidential/secret information/intelligence. But then the article lacks a real WP:TOPIC and becomes an anchor for those who want to criticize Trump. E.g. the mere release of whatever info by the commander-in-chief becomes a basis of criticism, not withstanding that CINC Trump is the ultimate authority in the classification system as to whether info is classified or releasable. As this article concerns a single, actual alleged release of classified material, it lacks encyclopedic WP:NOTEWORTHYness and should be deleted. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

WP Emir, I'm not sure what your point is. The discussion last year ended up with a "keep and expand article". But no new reliable info about disclosures of classified material to Russia or anyone else has surfaced. – S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I gave two examples above. Dekimasuよ! 23:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: I wish there was more meat on the example-bones you provided. One, the Syrian battle was known to all parties involved and none of the info ("leaked" or otherwise) involved actual secret info. Two, the accusation in the second example is based on a partisan source. Moreover, Schiff spoke in passive terms ("if" and "would be"). In fact, if Schiff actually knew from classified sources, that Trump leaked the sources, Schiff's own disclosure would violate security rules because his revelation would serve to confirm the security leak! Hence, get see a mere insinuation of leaking, unsupported by facts. I hope my comments serve to show that our WP discussion/editing regarding classified sources is on very shaky ground. And when it comes to Trump, the ground gets tectonic. – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the specific move-target suggested, though I don't like the current name either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - if that's what the article currently covers, then per WP:PRECISE the title should be as it was. RMs from a year ago aren't valid today if the assumptions they made haven't been met. If there are other verified and sourced disclosures to be covered, then cover them. Otherwise call the article what it is about.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information → Donald Trump's 2017 disclosures of classified information – There may have been various disclosures of classified information by Trump, for example by his unsecured cell phone usage. X1\ (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose... unless and until we have an article about classified information disclosures by Trump that did not occur in 2017. --В²C ☎ 00:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Speculation should have no place in devising encyclopedic titles. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New instance of revealing possibly classified info -- tweeting sensitive surveillance photos

I would bring to your attention this news article, and ask other editors more involved with this article if they want to incorporate additional info from this NPR news story into the article. https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755994591/president-trump-tweets-sensitive-surveillance-image-of-iran --Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)