This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
The intro states: “Ratcliffe made public assertions that contradicted the intelligence community's own assessments,” …. Then gives footnote 16.
This is stated as a fact in the into yet the footnote references an Opinion piece in the New York Times. I selected that link to read the article to see if this was fact or allegation or opinion but I could not read the article without paying for a subscription.
So two issues. First there is a question about the correctness of this statement of fact, and second why have footnotes that cannot be followed up on….and, I guess, third does Wikipedia at least get a commission if I do subscribe to the New York Times? SteveLew1948 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
View on the legitimacy of the result of the 2020 U.S. presidential election
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, John Ratcliffe, who is the CIA director and former congressman, is the primary topic based on both usage and long-term significance. He is the most searched and referenced person with this name, while all others are from the 1900s or earlier with less modern relevance. His political roles ensure lasting significance. A similar move was made for Chris Wright when he became Secretary of Energy. Since most readers searching "John Ratcliffe" are looking for him, disambiguation is unnecessary. TimeToFixThis | 🕒04:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blind assertions do not a primary topic make. You make a reference to less modern relevance- we don't judge based solely on "modern relevance", we actually avoid that per WP:RECENTISM. The politician has generally had more views, but not sufficiently more than any other topic prior to his recent appointment to be a primary topic. [1]estar8806 (talk) ★17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, but Oppose not adding disambiguation. This John Ratcliffe is by far the most popular one out there, as the page view count[2] is consistently above all the others. However, we should add a disambiguation because John Ratcliffe (governor) is still very much viewed, albeit not as much. People searching for the president of Jamestown may be confused by the redirect. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, John Ratcliffe the former congressman and CIA director is the most searched and referenced person with this name. While John Ratcliffe (governor) still receives some views, he died in 1609 and already has a disambiguation, preventing confusion. Readers specifically looking for the governor will find him through the existing disambiguation page, while most searching for "John Ratcliffe" expect the modern political figure. Adding unnecessary disambiguation contradicts Wikipedia’s goal of easy navigation. TimeToFixThis | 🕒04:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No primary topic by long-term significance. Not every American political appointee automatically becomes the primary topic. And it is truly bizarre to suggest that living people are automatically more significant than dead people. That's really not how it works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
