This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group. Military history: Biography / North America / United States Start‑class 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force United States Unassessed 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Afghanistan C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

he went on al Jazeera and said that the us support to isis was a "willful decision", surely that is something worth mentioning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80A9:DA20:4DAC:71DE:C4E8:E790 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources here [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a bit of press coverage over the last day or so regarding Bradley Manning's defense teams claim that it was Flynn that gave the orders that Manning was to be kept on POI status. I hereby suggest that this be added to the article. Snertking (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, it appears that the press messed that up. It was in fact Maj. General George Flynn, not Michael Flynn. 107.3.62.19 (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-the-entire-national-security-establishment-has-rejected-trumpexcept-for-this-man/2016/08/15/d5072d96-5e4b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html Cantab1985 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump Campaign sub-section is top-heavy with undue weight that is negatively based. I'm proposing the negative content be pared down considerably. We need to add content in regard to his involvement in the campaign that is positive, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"undue weight" does not mean that an an article has more "negatively based" content than it has "positive" content. It means that an article has too much "minority viewpoint", regardless of whether that viewpoint's content is negative or positive. The appropriate weight, as per Wikipedia policy, is for the article's content to be accurate, representative, from widely held views or widely supported aspects. And very specifically: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." DocRuby (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 24K edits in, I'm well aware of what undue weight is, DocRuby. I'm also aware that WP:COMMONSENSE is a great non-rule in Wikipedia. Both are applicable in regard to the Trump Campaign subsection along with WP:POVPUSH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're well aware of what undue weight is, why are you asking for a change to the article because of undue weight that is not justified by the undue weight policy? Do you have a different argument for changing the content that is not because of undue weight? Can you justify your suggestion that the article currently has problems with "the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas" as per WP:POVPUSH? DocRuby (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in sparring with you. Especially since you are coming on so aggressively and in a manner that mimics a battleground mentality and approach. The subsection is all negative and needs to be balanced out so that the subject of it - "Trump campaign" - also reflects the non-negative side of reliably sourced, verifiable content appropriate for inclusion there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "sparring" with you. You proposed a change with a justification. I didn't think that the justification supported your requested change, and said so clearly and politely. You replied to I said without clarifying, so I asked you to clarify. You still haven't given a justification for adding content that's "non-negative" other than an assertion that you think it should have more content that's positive. I also notice that you just deleted some of the factual content in that section without discussion, even though all you've proposed was adding "non-negative" content not deleting negative content. Your justification of "undue weight" does not support your proposal, and you haven't given an alternate justification though my request for one was reasonable. Really your side of this discussion looks to me like a "battleground approach", very aggressive, sarcastic and falsely accusatory, and without taking my requests for a clear justification at simple face value. All I've done is ask you for clarification when your justifications didn't clearly support your proposal. Your proposal might have some merit, but your reasons for it don't support it, so I don't really understand what your purpose is in discussing it here. DocRuby (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes I've made to the subsection should speak for themselves in the way of "justification". Especially now that the section is balanced out and that which was POV and not in line with the attached references has been culled and/or reworded. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the strange idea that the goal for a WP page is to present a perfect balance of positive and negative information? Your recent edits have simply eliminated relevant info that helps readers assess Flynn's activities in support of Trump's campaign. Who gains by preventing its inclusion? What is the need to exclude facts such as Flynn's encouragement of chants to lock up Trump's rival for office? Or that he says killing the families of terrorist suspects is a "political decision"? If that reflects negatively on Flynn, whose fault is that--Flynn, or those who documented his public statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.233 (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content you keep reading is not neutral in tone nor is it reflective of the sources attached to it. Please discontinue edit warring over this POV content taken out of context. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who is edit warring. Rather than discuss the matter here and reaching consensus with other editors, you unilaterally keep deleting the fully documented factual information about and statements by Flynn. Deleting info you personally prefer to exclude is engaging in POV unless you can supply a cogent reason for deleting each thing. It is striking that (a) you talk about adding more positive info about Flynn but then engage in deleting info; (b) you added seemingly banal comments Flynn made in response to banal "USA" chants from Trump supporters, but repeatedly insist on excluding Flynn's response to some very provocative chants. How is such interference in this page not an expression of POV? ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.199 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content you keep adding is POV in nature, it's POV in presentation. It does not belong in the article. I guess AN3 is the next stop since you insist on edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]