Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Errors on Mobile version of this Article

I'm not at all sure how to go about this so I am hoping that someone more knowledgeable sees this and can rectify it. The 'Section 3' and 'Section' 4 portions of this article (images) are not displaying correctly when I access it via a mobile device. Tried it on a tablet and a phone. If you click on 'Section 4' a image of the 'Section 3' letter shows up.

I just got on my desktop and it appears to be correct on this platform.

Regards, _Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.7.179.224 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this.

This sounds like a software bug that should be reported. I'm not sure the best way to do that, but I clicked on "Help" under "Contribute" on the left in the standard version of the article. (I don't know how to find it in the mobile version.)

Under "Help:Contents#Report a problem with an article, I read, "Alternatively you can contact us", and clicked, "Contact us". There I read, "You can also email the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team at info-en-o@wikimedia.org".

To find out where to report a software bug, I looked under "Help:Contents". There I found, "Help:Contents#Help by topic. Under that, I clicked ,"Technical information". That says, "Bug reports ... should be filed on Wikimedia's Phabricator."

However, reporting bugs on Phabricator is not easy, especially if you haven't done it before. Instead, I suggest you "email the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team at info-en-o@wikimedia.org", as previously suggested, and direct them to this discussion on this talk page.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hold your horses there, DavidMCEddy. Can you first confirm you can replicate the IP's problem? What is meant by "portions of this article (images)"? The quoted portions aren't images, they're text boxes generated by {{quote box}}. What OS and browser is the IP using? I just browsed the article on mobile (Samsung Browser) and everything appeared to be fine on a quick look. In particular: When I expanded the header "Section 4: Declaration by vice president and principal officers" the correct text appeared. I then accessed the same page in Firefox and Chrome (all three browsers on an Android phone), and while subheaders aren't individually expandable/collapsible there, the text rendered just fine in both browsers. CapnZapp (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed legislation

I think the coverage of the recently-proposed legislation creating a body to assess incapacity under the Amendment is worth including. I've seen some attempts here, and a reversion of them. The text added strikes me as too embroiled in the present and the whole Trump/anti-Trump factor.

The amendment says "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide"... and up to now, it's always been a matter for the Cabinet ("principal officers of the executive departments"); and this is the first (I think) legislation to provide for the other alternative, the "such other body as Congress may by law provide". It ought to be covered, but as apolitically as possible. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the references in the "Refideas" template above could help with that. I no longer have Heinonline, but the Bayh reference looks like a particularly good one. Bayh was one of the earliest proponents of the amendment as Senator; and, since his article was in 1995, it clearly predates all the Trump angst. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I support adding a reference to such legislation, but with some caveats.

First, the amendment and the proposed legislation must be correctly described. Some news articles have incorrectly claimed the amendment can be used to remove a President from office and others have referred to the proposed legislation as creating a body that alone could declare a President to be disabled. Nobody can be removed from office under the 25A and under Section 4 the VP must agree that the President is disabled; it can be with a majority of the Cabinet or with a majority of a Congressionally created body, but the VP must agree for Section 4 to be invoked.

Second, we have to keep the text of the proposed legislation in mind. This is so we avoid synthesis. Many people will interpret the proposed legislation and, while it would be accurate to quote those interpretations, we should avoid citing them, because that could easily confuse readings as to the contents of the proposed legislation.

Finally, avoid giving the proposed legislation undue weight. The amount of attention the article gives the proposed legislation should be relative to the amount of attention it receives in Congress, the news media, and academia.

I know most editors will find the above to be obvious, but it's very important that all editors contributing to this article be accurate and neutral in this matter. SMP0328. (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if there's more but one removal was done by me for two reasons: 1) undue emphasis on Trump 2) wrong section ("Considered invocations" is just factually incorrect). This would be much more natural to present as a continuation of " Proposal, enactment, and ratification". The basic news ("bill on setting up a committee") is fine if it's noteworthy. I am not sure it is noteworthy yet. CapnZapp (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been no activity on this subject, maybe y'all thought my response to be opposed to including info about the proposed legislation. I'm actually not. I just ask you to find a better place for it in the article than under "considered invocations", since it isn't about considering an actual invocation, it's about changing procedure re: future invocations. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

minthreadsleft

Re the archiving bot setting |minthreadsleft=. Setting this value to below four means talk pages are emptied out by the archival bot. It means there's no TOC, and the page looks strangely empty. Normally there is no controversy regarding why 4 or 5 is commonly used and seen, but since this value has been changed by multiple times I guess we have to bring it to talk.

I suggest 4. CapnZapp (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of the point of archiving threads is to take old ones off of the talk page. A talk page is for active conversations about its article. Having one thread on the talk page is enough to prevent it from being emptied out. This isn't even a current issue, as autoarchivng is set to 180 days. Even if no more commenting took place on this talk place and as long as autoarchiving are unchanged, autoarchiving won't kick in before April. SMP0328. (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The true point of archiving is to prevent talk pages from becoming very long. There are lots of slow talk pages, some with very old discussions, and noone is concerned about that. The issue thus isn't whether archiving bots should "take old ones off" because that's obvious. The issue here is instead what you skirted, namely whether to empty out talk pages doing that. I'm arguing let's not do that - there is nothing gained, but to many editors a single-discussion talk page lacking a TOC comes across as unfamiliar: new, unpopular or just strange. CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not "skirt" any issue. I said above that as long as there is at least one thread on a talk page that talk page is not emptied out. Having old discussions that have ceased having any new comments on a talk page does not provide any illusion that there is a current discussion on that talk page. Everyone can read the time stamps on comments, so there's no point to keeping long-dormant discussions on a talk page. As for this talk page, there are three active discussions and autoarchiving is set to 180 days. This means, under that setting, it will be at least six months before either of these discussions is autoarchived. The only purpose achieved by setting minthreadsleft to 4 on this talk page is to keep those three discussions on the talk page long after they have concluded. Setting minthreadsleft to 1 will allow two of those discussions to be autoarchived while keeping one thread in place to avoid emptying out this talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. The 180d you keep talking so much about was changed by EEng while reverting your minthreadsleft change and helping you achieve your goals. Arguing 180d speaks in your favor is not logical.

And again, archiving is not done to take old discussions off the page. As you say yourself, everyone can read the time stamps on comments. There's no harm in leaving them. Otherwise we would archive all talk pages, even ones with maybe only half a dozen topics in total, even over decades. We don't do that - there are plenty of talk pages with decade old talk discussions. No, you archive talk pages to keep the size/length down.

When I'm talking about talk pages being emptied out, I do not mean blanking the page. Please don't reinterpret my words. Had I meant for "one thread on the talk page is enough to prevent it from being emptied out" I wouldn't have used that phrase, I would have used "blanking". So, no, one thread on the talk page is not enough to prevent it from being emptied out. That's why I suggest minthreadsleft=4.

CapnZapp (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you suggest for a compromise, SMP? CapnZapp (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

How about two? That certainly should be enough to keep this talk page looking active. SMP0328. (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• I can hardly believe my fingers are typing this, but I agree with CapnZapp. Always leaving a few threads does several things: (1) gives you a feeling that if you post something, someone may be listening; (2) gives a sense of what's been going on recently; (3) via the timestamps, gives a sense of how recent "recently" is. There's no harm at all in leaving some old threads, and I'd vote for keeping it 4. EEng 01:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is fooled by keeping four threads up when those threads have been dormant for months. Threads that have been dormant for months are not "recent" discussions. Timestamps of whatever number of threads are on the talk page can tell a person what has been happening recently on the talk page. That's true with 1, 2, 3, or 4 threads. What are your views on compromising at 2 threads? SMP0328. (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing I said had anything to do with fooling anyone, and I made it clear that my use of recent was to be interpreted on a time scale anywhere from days to glacial. I still think a generous number like 4 is best, to give a significant overview of "recent" activity and the period over which "recent" is to be interpreted. In fact, the state of the talk page until recently [1], containing five threds spread over the last three years, gave a good sense of what's been going on, the kinds of issues that have been arising, and the way they've been handled. At least one, in fact, is arguably still live despite its age. Leave the parameter 4, I say. EEng 04:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Refspam?

Could you confirm that this edit [2] was intentional, User:Diannaa? Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed this edit while removing content added by Lglenhaber, whose sole activity on Wikipedia has been to add material sourced to one particular website. It's a form of citation spam to add content as a way to try to drive traffic to a particular website, in this case publicseminar.org. Two different named accounts were doing this yesterday - Helenlctan and Lglenhaber.— Diannaa (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump removed???

Any source???--78.102.53.207 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There has been no indication from any reputable media outlet as of yet that a majority of cabinet members/VP has invoked the 25th Amendment for his removal. There has only been a discussion regarding the circumstances and his fitness to hold the office. Some outlets have reported that various legislators have called for this to take place but nothing kinetic has happened as of yet. OfficerManatee (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)