Talk:Transition Integrity Project

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Creation of Transition Integrity Project

Please place any comments about the page here. Prauls901 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to page

This page appears to have been vandalized. Inaccurate information was added and some of the links also seem to be altered. The links still need to be fixed. I think this page will need to be monitored to prevent this from happening again. Prauls901 (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to monitor this page may need to be revisited. Thriftycat needed to revert 2 cases of vandalism by user 50.4.126.134, and I just reverted an addition by the same user, in which a claim was made that denied the findings reported in the article itself. Mjpl (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjpl - I have the page on my watchlist. I don't think that any further action is needed for now, but if unconstructive editing continues, we could consider a block or protection. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriftycat OK. Thank you. I had considered sending you a message about this. I put the page on my watchlist too. Mjpl (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sections Order

As this is a new group, maybe the wargames, and an expanded article on the entire thing, should be above the political commentary. There's a lot that has been missed from their report. The report shouldn't start with media stuff about the election.

History & Context

I have improved this section which had some misplaced footnotes that could have cause confusion. I request the removal of the "synthesis of material" flag.

Quotation style

I have been correcting the curly quotes in this article to straight quotes, as per our Manual of Style; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation characters. User:Mbierman reverted my corrections, claiming "these are correct for quotes". Mbierman, please self-revert your edit, since Wikipedia style is to use straight quotes. I will wait for your response before taking any action myself. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not responded, I have restored the straight quotation marks. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted and carte-blanche removal of referenced content by User: OnlyNano

I spent a few hours adding a relevant item to the article, including literally inline citations. I come back to notice that OnlyNano has reverted all of these changes, labelling them as unconstructive without any explanation or revision of my sources.

They then post on my talk page stating that I should edit in the talk page, and that they were unconstructive, as though I was simply adding spam or noodling around. Just because I'm using an IP address doesn't mean I was adding spam, I referenced everything I added.

It's relevant because there has been a recent discussion in which this was literally brought up as a reference point. No criticism of sources, no outline of what is unconstructive, no mention of what or why, just straight-up deleted. 2806:2F0:5680:F7E2:F40E:7EE0:4E9:7E1D (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the edits in question. "Unconstructive" probably wouldn't have been the description I would have used, and I have no doubt that your intent was to add value and information to the article, but I don't think what you wrote is suitable for inclusion. Re-writing large portions of a single document into a Wikipedia article isn't really something we do. If someone wants that level of granular detail, the idea would be that they could just go read the document in question. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article I think needs to be clarified because this is fuelling a lot of misinformation coming from right-wing groups, and this could do with some clarification about specifically some of the scenarios as this is something they are referencing from some of the videos I have seen. Similarly, adding other sources like newspapers, they're essentially going to cite the document so there is very little choice *but* to cite that document although I agree it was in overly-granular detail. For instance, the article isn't clear that the reason for secession or proposed/threatened secession is because of the Trump maneuvering in the scenario -- this is being misquoted as "Democrats say x and y states must secede" but that's not true. I think their intention was to try and clarify this. 187.216.154.231 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]