Talk:Michael Flynn resigns as National Security Advisor to Trump administration

Verification

• The two sentences' worth of quotes from Spicer are not to be found (by me, anyway) in the sources. I'm deferring decision on how to handle that while I what other verification problems there might be.

--Pi zero (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Weird. It was definitely there when I copypasted it. I know because I made sure I had a source with the comma in the correct position. I'm under the impression that American English punctuation makes you less uncomfortable if the terminal punctuation is identical to the source. NBC did some jumping around while I was writing this one. Okay. I figured out what happened. NBC must have had a "send them to our most recent coverage" link that got changed while I was working. I remember updating the link so that it pointed to the article I was actually using, but the window to the newer one must have been scrolled down and open.

The article works fine without the full Spicer quote, IMHO.

There we go. Here's the other NBC article. This should also allay any comma concerns. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4287986 [Passed]

Revision 4287986 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Added a bunch of attribution; and cut an uncomfortable amount of stuff I couldn't verify, including two sentences worth of direct quote from Spicer. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4287986 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Added a bunch of attribution; and cut an uncomfortable amount of stuff I couldn't verify, including two sentences worth of direct quote from Spicer. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

There was an NBC-sponsored game of three-link Monty. Sorry for the slipup. See above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm used to it. Mainstream news sites often change their articles in ways that remove details that used to be there and weren't wrong (though one also can't rule out they might erase the record of some of their errors that way). I'm not exactly "relaxed" about it; I deplore it, as fundamentally anti-news because it deprives readers of information and exercises a degree of revisionism; but there's nothing to do about it but to be better than that ourselves. --Pi zero (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The twenty-first-century press is a slippery beast, the hagfish of journalism. And thanks for going with the circumlocution instead of the straight revert. It's nice to know I'm not the only one putting the effort in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)