Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk | contribs) |
Bob K31416 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 347: | Line 347: | ||
:::::: WP:LABEL "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The purpose of the guideline is to ask editors to "be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms." I don't think that the use of the term in the article violates the spirit of the guideline. Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants and "shithole countries" and asking non-white Americans to go back where they come from have been widely reported and condemned as racist. That has to be in the article. I cannot think of any other phrasing that doesn't violate the related guideline of [[WP:DOUBT]]. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
:::::: WP:LABEL "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The purpose of the guideline is to ask editors to "be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms." I don't think that the use of the term in the article violates the spirit of the guideline. Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants and "shithole countries" and asking non-white Americans to go back where they come from have been widely reported and condemned as racist. That has to be in the article. I cannot think of any other phrasing that doesn't violate the related guideline of [[WP:DOUBT]]. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
It doesn't appear that there will be a citation in the lead for this item. Since this is a biased article which has little chance of being remedied, maybe the lack of citations in the lead is for the best because it adds to the appearance of bias and readers can be alerted to that by just looking at the lead. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 20:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Congratulations == |
== Congratulations == |
Revision as of 20:34, 10 October 2022
Archives (Index): | |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
Template:Vital article |
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)
1. Use theQueens, New York City, U.S.
" in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)
gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "
receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)
Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Removed from the lead per #47.
Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion.
(July 2018, July 2018)
Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)
without prior military or government service
". (Dec 2016)
Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)
12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)
13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)
14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies
(June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)
have sparked numerous protests.
22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)
Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.(Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).
25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)
26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow"
or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation"
. (RfC April 2018)
27. State that Trump falsely claimed
that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther
rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)
28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)
29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)
30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
" (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)
31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)
32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)
33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)
34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.(RfC Feb 2019)
37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)
38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)
39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)
40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.
(RfC Aug 2019)
41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)
42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020.
(Feb 2020)
43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)
44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)
46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)
47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)
48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
(Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)
49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
(Dec 2020)
50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
(March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)
51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)
52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)
53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)
54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.
(October 2021)
55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia
, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)
56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan
but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)
57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)
58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)
59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)
60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.
61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:
- Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
- Close the thread using
{{archive top}}
and{{archive bottom}}
, referring to this consensus item. - Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
- Manually archive the thread.
This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)
62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)
63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)
64. Omit the {{Very long}}
tag. (January 2024)
65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)
Trump lead citations
Wikipedia has made a negative, politically biased view of trump 2600:1017:B103:C5B4:9D50:B71A:AEC4:67DA (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Care to point out how? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
One of the first paragraphs says "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." With no sources or references. This is a clear statement of bias Croazz (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Those things are cited in the body. Often, things cited in the body do not need to be cited in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. Since Trump is "controversial", I wouldn't oppose adding those citations to the lead. But that sentence isn't biased, it's accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Are you sure they are cited in the body? Off hand, the part "...to a degree unprecedented in American politics" looks suspicious of being OR. Could you give the excerpt from the body, the source and the excerpt from the source that supports this part? Bob K31416 (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- But isn't the wording of the lead section mostly against WP:NPOV? I mean, "unprecedented in American politics" is a very strong statement and that is not based on anything. I think it is rather biased and imprecise. 3skandar (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
As a domestic terrorist
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trump has been labeled as a domestic terrorist by a dozen or so high ranking, current and former law enforcement and US government employees. For example, Republican former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage described him as a domestic terrorist in 2021, while more recently, Democrat Juliette Kayyem, formerly of the United States Department of Homeland Security, also referred to Trump in this way. Should this be covered in this biography? Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Proposed addition
The Guardian and ABC News have identified more than 50 "criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault."[1] According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts.[2] In addition to these threats, Reuters has documented 102 threats of death or violence received by more than 40 election officials, workers and their relatives in eight of the most contested battleground states in the 2020 US presidential contest."[3]
References
- ^ Levine, Mike (May 30, 2020). "'No Blame?' ABC News finds 54 cases invoking 'Trump' in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults". ABC News. Archived from the original on September 19, 2022. Retrieved September 24, 2022.
- ^ Follman, Mark (March 2021). "American Carnage". Mother Jones. Vol. 46, no. 2. pp. 5–8. Archived from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved February 5, 2021.
- ^ So, Linda; Szep, Jason (September 8, 2021). "Special Report: Terrorized U.S. election workers get little help from law enforcement". Reuters. Retrieved September 24, 2022.
Comments
- absolutely not per MOS:TERRORIST Anon0098 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please read the MOS again: "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. An example of this would be Ted Kaczynski, where everyone agrees he is a terrorist. Trump is not “widely” described as a domestic terrorist by RSs. Anon0098 (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to provide a large number of reliable sources using the verbatim verbiage “terrorist” Anon0098 (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- They may not use terrorist verbatim, but there's hundreds of RS that describe how Trump has one way or another used violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. AKA the definition of terrorism. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we can work it that way, FD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- I already have these sources collected in my user space. The thing is, I know you will just move the goalposts each and every time and play the no true Scotsman card. So let’s cut to the chase: what criteria will you accept to represent the evidence that Donald Trump is, according to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to NBC’s Meet the Press, "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism". This is not a fringe opinion. It is the opinion of the reality-based community. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Saying he is "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism" is NOT the same thing as saying he "is a terrorist". Personally I'd be fine with the article using that Whitmer quote, and putting it in the context of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and the Unite the Right rally to show how his words and actions have inspired others to commit terrorist acts, but I think we need to be EXTREMELY careful about saying he "is a terrorist" in Wiki voice. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- That’s one of hundreds of quotes about Trump as a domestic terrorist, so I don’t think it’s fair to pick on it. Here’s another one: "For me it started in Charlottesville when he said there were good people on both sides of the issue," Mr Armitage said, referring to clashes at a white supremacist rally in 2017 in which a counter-protester was killed. "There was violence at those rallies and it's continued. "And most recently when the President was firing up the crowd, and previously saying, 'it's going to be a wild day', then urging them to march on the Capitol. "All those things lead me to believe that he's a domestic terrorist." Source. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Saying he is "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism" is NOT the same thing as saying he "is a terrorist". " So what in the hell do you think it means? If you tell people to go do terroristic things and they do, then YOU ARE A TERRORIST. End of discussion. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Saying he is "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism" is NOT the same thing as saying he "is a terrorist". Personally I'd be fine with the article using that Whitmer quote, and putting it in the context of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and the Unite the Right rally to show how his words and actions have inspired others to commit terrorist acts, but I think we need to be EXTREMELY careful about saying he "is a terrorist" in Wiki voice. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- They may not use terrorist verbatim, but there's hundreds of RS that describe how Trump has one way or another used violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. AKA the definition of terrorism. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to provide a large number of reliable sources using the verbatim verbiage “terrorist” Anon0098 (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. An example of this would be Ted Kaczynski, where everyone agrees he is a terrorist. Trump is not “widely” described as a domestic terrorist by RSs. Anon0098 (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please read the MOS again: "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- NO, per wp:blp we can't accuse someone of a serious crime. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Under current US law, domestic terrorism itself has no criminal penalties, therefore, it is not classified as a crime. See: Schifrin, Nick. (February 4, 2021). "What consequences have rioters faced for the Capitol attack?". PBS NewsHour. Archived from the original on 2021-02-05. Quote from Jane Holl Lute: "There is a definition of domestic terrorism, but, perhaps surprisingly to many of us, it doesn't carry any criminal penalties. And so if you're charging individuals who are intent on violence, law enforcement is having to use, as you say, other statutes and other provisions." Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It may not be a crime in and of itself it is a serious accusation of wrongdoing that will involve crimes. In addition, most of that text is not about Trump, it is about other people using his name. This, therefore, is a violation of BLP, and undue. We can't imply he has orchestrated a terrorist campaign. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Under current US law, domestic terrorism itself has no criminal penalties, therefore, it is not classified as a crime. See: Schifrin, Nick. (February 4, 2021). "What consequences have rioters faced for the Capitol attack?". PBS NewsHour. Archived from the original on 2021-02-05. Quote from Jane Holl Lute: "There is a definition of domestic terrorism, but, perhaps surprisingly to many of us, it doesn't carry any criminal penalties. And so if you're charging individuals who are intent on violence, law enforcement is having to use, as you say, other statutes and other provisions." Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not per WP:TERRORIST. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- As originally addressed, the MOS does not prohibit the use of the word, but actually allows for it in the way I’m using it: in other words, the term is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Calling Trump a domestic terrorist meets this requirement. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not widely used by reliable sources. Only one source you've offered does so (Mother Jones), and it has sketchy reliability in regards to politics at WP:RSP. You would need many, many, many sources describing him as such to even put in as attributed, much less in WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Everything covered by Mother Jones has been covered by other sources. Calling Trump a domestic terrorist meets this requirement. For example, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security, said Trump is the "operational leader of this domestic terrorism effort" in the US who uses "stochastic terrorism" as a primary tactic. Kori Schake, formerly of the National Security Council and State Department during the Bush admin, calls Trump "an arsonist of radicalization". Elizabeth Neumann, former DHS assistant secretary in the area of counterterrorism and threat prevention, said "language from campaign materials and Trump’s extemporaneous speeches at rallies have been used as justification for acts of violence". These quotes are from 2020, before Trump began to overtly promote QAnon as he does today, a movement which was designated as a domestic terrorist threat by the FBI in 2019. None of this material is unique to Mother Jones, nor does it depend on it or require it. In other words, Mother Jones is entirely irrelevant to this argument and discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- None of those people are reliable sources. If this is not unique to Mother Jones then how about you provide the plethora of reliable sources that label Trump as a terrorist. That WP:ONUS is on you. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You questioned the reliability of a source that claimed "Donald Trump is considered a 'terrorist leader' by national security experts". I then provided a shortlist of those experts, showing that the claim was supported. Like I said, objections to this material will consist solely of moving the goalposts and no true Scotsman appeals. The honest truth is that it won’t matter how many sources I provide, there is no source you will accept. Just trying to save you some time. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Those people likely qualify as subject-matter experts, i.e. they're reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- A subject matter expert is not the same thing as a reliable source. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable sources have reported that the Proud Boys were designated as terrorist groups by Canada and New Zealand, while the US has declined to do so. Wikipedia reports this, just as we report that Trump has been designated a domestic terrorist leader by x and y. For example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC News) reported that Richard Armitage called Donald Trump a domestic terrorist. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:V: "
sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
" ––FormalDude (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)- I'd argue that is the case for Juliette Kayyem, someone who appears to be an academic in that field, but if you were going to do it that way, the opinion should be directly attributed to her as an academic. If you were talking about including this with a bunch of academic opinions (journal articles, etc) listing him as such, I don't think anyone would disagree. But if this is included, even with consensus to do so here, expect constant pushback to referring to Trump as a domestic terrorist using a source that even RSP describes as
Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source
. - As a matter of fact, RSP even suggests exactly what I am suggesting here,
its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed
. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)- I'd support direct attribution to Juliette Kayyem. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd argue that is the case for Juliette Kayyem, someone who appears to be an academic in that field, but if you were going to do it that way, the opinion should be directly attributed to her as an academic. If you were talking about including this with a bunch of academic opinions (journal articles, etc) listing him as such, I don't think anyone would disagree. But if this is included, even with consensus to do so here, expect constant pushback to referring to Trump as a domestic terrorist using a source that even RSP describes as
- A subject matter expert is not the same thing as a reliable source. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- None of those people are reliable sources. If this is not unique to Mother Jones then how about you provide the plethora of reliable sources that label Trump as a terrorist. That WP:ONUS is on you. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Everything covered by Mother Jones has been covered by other sources. Calling Trump a domestic terrorist meets this requirement. For example, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security, said Trump is the "operational leader of this domestic terrorism effort" in the US who uses "stochastic terrorism" as a primary tactic. Kori Schake, formerly of the National Security Council and State Department during the Bush admin, calls Trump "an arsonist of radicalization". Elizabeth Neumann, former DHS assistant secretary in the area of counterterrorism and threat prevention, said "language from campaign materials and Trump’s extemporaneous speeches at rallies have been used as justification for acts of violence". These quotes are from 2020, before Trump began to overtly promote QAnon as he does today, a movement which was designated as a domestic terrorist threat by the FBI in 2019. None of this material is unique to Mother Jones, nor does it depend on it or require it. In other words, Mother Jones is entirely irrelevant to this argument and discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not widely used by reliable sources. Only one source you've offered does so (Mother Jones), and it has sketchy reliability in regards to politics at WP:RSP. You would need many, many, many sources describing him as such to even put in as attributed, much less in WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- As originally addressed, the MOS does not prohibit the use of the word, but actually allows for it in the way I’m using it: in other words, the term is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Calling Trump a domestic terrorist meets this requirement. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - By the way, we don't even describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist in WP:WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- In other words, other things exist. Viriditas (talk) Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's a strawman as nobody here is suggesting we label Trump a terrorist in wiki voice. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a strawman. This discussion is about Trump being labeled/described as a domestic terrorist. I'm saying it would be very inappropriate to do so in WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's important to be precise and specific in one's posts here. Otherwise it becomes like the telephone game where next thing, somebody will read your words and think that OP proposed labeling him a terrorist in Wikivoice. It also fails to help us evaluate whether 1) the opinion is widely held, and 2) whether it's meaningful to label him like that. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Either you don't know what wikivoice is or you don't know what this proposal is, because the suggested text that describes him as a terrorist is directly attributed. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn’t matter that much anyway because it’s inappropriate attributed or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- That is no substitute for a well-reasoned argument that addresses the proposal under discussion. Arguments are not portable from one issue to a different issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- The argument by myself and others is that no evidence has been presented that Trump is widely described as a terrorist in reliable sources. Hence, it’s inappropriate to describe, whether it be attributed or not, that Trump is a domestic terrorist in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- That is no substitute for a well-reasoned argument that addresses the proposal under discussion. Arguments are not portable from one issue to a different issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn’t matter that much anyway because it’s inappropriate attributed or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a strawman. This discussion is about Trump being labeled/described as a domestic terrorist. I'm saying it would be very inappropriate to do so in WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- +1 Please, no strawman arguments here. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- And we have one person's view he is a terrorist, which violates wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- We have many people who view Trump as a terrorist. United States Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas considers domestic extremism the top threat to the United States. This threat is coming from Donald Trump and his supporters. Former Trump administration official Miles Taylor said that the Republican Party represents the "number one national security threat" to the United States, a greater threat than terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. This is not one person's view. This is the mainstream, establishment view on the national security threat level to the US. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It seems like original research to be connecting those things: domestic extremism is top threat; the threat is coming from the Trump crowd. I would want to see a few reliable sources that have done that research, and explicitly say Trump is a terrorist. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- And we have one person's view he is a terrorist, which violates wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think this may be a bridge too far right now. Certainly he and the other Jan 6 instigators are heading in the direction of being regarded as such, but we're not there yet. Zaathras (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- lol no, per "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources" as pointed out by others. The evidence of use presented here is far below "widely used by reliable sources". That phrase doesn't mean "a dozen people's opinion as reported by a journalist". Show me three history books, by historians, where the historian calls Trump a "terrorist" in the historian's own voice... and even then it wouldn't be widely. Show me ten such examples, and then we'll talk. The term may be applicable in my opinion or yours, but definitely not
for wikivoiceWP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)- How about you provide just one recent RS that stops short of describing Trump as a terrorist? Because, as said above, it is the conclusion of every major national security analysis since January 2021. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- [1] is about
substantial new details about former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election
but it doesn't call him a terrorist. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)- I know you only asked for one, but here are three more
- Crotty, William (2021-06-28). The Presidential Election of 2020: Donald Trump and the Crisis of Democracy. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-7936-2556-4.
- Trautman, Lawrence J. (2021-03-19). "Democracy at Risk: Domestic Terrorism and Attack on the U.S. Capitol". Seattle University Law Review. 45 (4). doi:10.2139/ssrn.3808365.
- Rapoport, David C. (2021-07-04). "The Capitol Attack and the 5th Terrorism Wave". Terrorism and Political Violence. 33 (5): 912–916. doi:10.1080/09546553.2021.1932338. ISSN 0954-6553.
- All refer to the attack as domestic terrorism; none refer to Trump as a terrorist. Levivich (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I know you only asked for one, but here are three more
- FormalDude, the onus is on the person making the claim to bring forth the evidence. Not the other way around. I know you know that.
It [Trump being a terrorist] is the conclusion of every major national security analysis since January 2021
—link it, then. Provide good sources. I'm not saying that statement isn't true, but, rather, the lack of good, quality sourcing by the people wanting to make the change, and then the shifting of the burden of actualy finding that evidence (which, apparently, is plentiful enough that it deserves coverage in this article, and which also is not being linked for whatever reason despite the fact that it is, apparently, as I already said, plentiful enough to deserve coverage in this article) onto others, just doesn't seem fair. - The few sources linked have been called into question, and if it is so "widely used", I'm sure a simple Google Scholar or NYT search will provide us with more evidence. Enough to say that it is "widely used", however? We will have to wait and see. However, no one here can tell me that, based on the information that has been provided, there is enough info to even come close to satisfying the "widely used" requirement of MOS:TERRORIST. Right? Am I wrong? Cessaune (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- [1] is about
- How about you provide just one recent RS that stops short of describing Trump as a terrorist? Because, as said above, it is the conclusion of every major national security analysis since January 2021. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Levivich, "lol no" was pretty much my reaction too, per MOS:TERRORIST, there is no way that term is used widely enough. And even then, if you wanted to include it, I wouldn't support the weasel words "national security experts". That opinion needs to be attributed to who it comes from. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- The claim that Trump is considered a domestic terrorist is now so widespread and well known that CPAC uses it as an unofficial rallying cry at their conference ("We are all domestic terrorists"). And I already attributed the national security experts by name up above. Did you even read this discussion? Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd recommend being a little less condescending. Might make others more willing to see your point. Let's examine your reference there.
after all, one of CPAC’s afternoon panels was titled “We Are All Domestic Terrorists.” One of its participants, Texas state board of education candidate Julie Pickren of Houston, began by claiming the title was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. “Nobody in this room is a domestic terrorist,” she assured the thousand or so right-wing activists in the Hilton Anatole’s Trinity Ballroom.
- How in the hell is that an "unofficial rallying cry"? It was a joke (a terrible joke doesn't stop being a joke just because it lands flat) title for a panel. Not a rallying cry, are you seriously trying to use that to back up your claim? If that's the strength of the sourcing, I'm not sure you're going to convince many. You didn't convince me. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, in reference to the named security experts, yes, you did, but in the proposed addition to the article, you used the phrase
According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts
- The attribution goes to the journalist, not the named security experts. So, yes, I did read it, and I still think the phrase "national security experts" is a weasel word that should be avoided with direct attribution, if this is used. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Viriditas, many reliable sources do say that. However, to call Trump a terrorist, according to MOS:TERRORIST, we have to look at it with a broader eye.
- First of all, we need to
make sure... that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy.
(emphasis mine) - Second, none of the sources you gave directly label Trump as a 'terrorist', acknowledging that people spinning off of the articles may label Trump as a terrorist and they may very well be qualified.
- Third, is it fair to label him as a terrorist? Do we have enough reliable sources agreeing with that statement?
- Fourth, 'terrorist' is the definition of a word with a negative connotation. Would a different word be more appropriate?
- Keep in mind that the absolute most we can say is something along the lines of 'he has been characterized as a terrorist', if we say anything. Cessaune (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- The claim that Trump is considered a domestic terrorist is now so widespread and well known that CPAC uses it as an unofficial rallying cry at their conference ("We are all domestic terrorists"). And I already attributed the national security experts by name up above. Did you even read this discussion? Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- absolutely not WP:VOICE & MOS:TERRORIST Cover it. I second that it would be extremely inappropriate and misleading to readers if you used wiki-voice and labeled Trump a domestic terrorist. Eruditess (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Domestic terrorist? That may be a tad harsh. What if we take the phrase "domestic terrorist" and tweak it, just a hair, to something like, "a person heavily criticized".[2] Bob K31416 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This is the same Richard Armitage who falsely stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which helped persuade the U.S. to enter a catastrophic war. He also "inadvertently" leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, destroying her career. Viriditas, why do you think he is credible source? TFD (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- A truly bizarre comment. 1) That's not at all what happened (Hussein, Iraq War, Plame), and 2) Armitage is not the source for "Donald Trump is a domestic terrorist". You may wish to read this discussion or not, your choice. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- You began this discussion by saying, "Richard Armitage described him as a domestic terrorist in 2021." [02:26, 25 September 2022] Now you are saying, "Armitage is not the source for "Donald Trump is a domestic terrorist"." Do you see how someone could see that as a contradiction?
- Armitage absolutely promoted the false WMDs in Iraq story and even signed the 1998 Project for a New American Century letter to President Bill Clinton which said Saddam Hussein should be removed from office because of the threat of WMDs.[3] And yes Armitage "outed" Valerie Plame, whose husband had been critical of the claims of WMDs, although he took three years to admit it.[4]
- Do you know that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs, that the White House fabricated the evidence for them and that independent security experts who had access to the reports from the administration said they were unbelievable? Is there any reason you base your beliefs on Armitage's conclusions? Maybe it's third time lucky?
- TFD (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
RFC??
Is this RFC worthy? If so, what would the RFC say? Cessaune (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- No. I originally put this material together in February 2021 and waited until now to discuss it and gauge the feeling of the community. The community is apparently still stuck in the year 2004. I will wait until after the next Trump-inspired attempted coup and insurrection to bring it up again. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- You probably want to be less open about your desire to push a particular POV (that Trump is a terrorist) into this article. The non-POV-pushing response would have been something like "we will re-evaluate the sources in the future." Levivich (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, yet again. I am always fully open about writing articles from the POV of our best sources, which say "Donald Trump is considered a 'terrorist leader' by national security experts". I notice that you just tried to turn the tables, and make this less about that claim and what our sources say, and more about what you personally believe about me and my motivation. I would like to say that these underhanded tactics reveal your POV much more than they do my own. I have been nothing but above board about my rationale and my goals. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think your vitriol for those who disagree with you did more to kill your proposal than anything else. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Strange, again, as I see no "vitriol" at all, up above. Have you considered that these emotionally-laden observations extend only as far as yourself? Once again, great job distracting from the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I know you will just move the goalposts each and every time and play the no true Scotsman card.
,You’re confused.
,The honest truth is that it won’t matter how many sources I provide, there is no source you will accept. Just trying to save you some time.
,Did you even read this discussion?
,A truly bizarre comment.
,Have you considered that these emotionally-laden observations extend only as far as yourself?
I’d suggest you reevaluate your approach to discussion if you truly see no vitriol in these statements. Anon0098 (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)- Zero virtiol. None. Zilch. Nada. This is an extremely common tactic with Trump supporters and members of cults. They claim that anyone who criticizes their cult of personality is angry, upset, full of vitriol, and aggressive. There's actually articles about this phenomenon. I also experienced it firsthand when I laid out an extensive argument criticizing the cult of personality around Ronald Reagan. Editors showed up out of the blue just to claim that I was angry and full of vitriol. This kind of reaction appears to be endemic in conservative circles. Anyone who dares criticize their movement or their leaders is cruel and full of hate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have expressed zero emotions or POV about how I feel on this page. What I'm seeing is a massive amount of deflection, projection, and externalization of how Trump supporters feel about having their sacred cows tipped. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop. Levivich (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- No. Susan Benesch: "Trump’s supporters need to hear his messages repudiated by other leaders they admire, such as ministers, media figures, and celebrities. Almost all of those have so far remained silent, or have decried the violence, but not its catalyst. They should now explain that Trump was wrong to teach them to see Democrats, Muslims, immigrants, and journalists, among others, as their enemies." Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Let me ask you a question, Viriditas: Why do you choose to take time out of your day to edit a website that gives you nothing in return, a website, in fact, which is inclined to take more out of you that you put into it?
- Because you enjoy it.
- If I had a phrase for the totality of Wikipedia it would be:
The anarchy of society condensed into something almost organically human, a website of little happiness and lots of pain that derives it powers not from its greatness but from its weakness.
Or something like that. That is the whole point of Wikipedia. It is an experiment, an early Internet experiment, in fact, one of the greatest experiments of all time. Humans have created an entire encyclopedia based on "the innate need that all nerds have to correct others", as my friend affectionally put it. And as such, we aren't all that different. We may be Trump supporters or pineapple-on-pizza haters or vegans or lesbians or cat lovers or professional handball players. We may have two kids or no kids or be an only child or be one of thirteen or be old or young or skinny or fat or Chinese or English or Nigerian, but it doesn't matter. Our differences create an equilibrium, the same tentative equilibrium that defines all of Wikipedia. We are not looking to push our point-of-view, or to deliberately inflame, or to disrupt, though these things may happen. We are simply seeking to make others understand us, and a lot of non-verbal explanation is obscured in online discussion, which creates a lot of problems. Believe me, we aren't looking to shame or embarass or annoy, though we are all human and it happens. It happens and it isn't fun when it does. Yet, we come back, we return to the screen, again and again and again. Why? Why do we choose to take time out of our day to edit a website that gives us nothing in return? Why? - Because, we all have one thing in common:
- We love the truth.
- The collective does not seek to destroy. The collective only seeks to create the best possible truth. Yes, the collective will be different in a week, a month, a day. But it will never be wrong, as long as good people continue to join in the effort, as long as we are able to understand that the 'truth' of Wikipedia might not be our own personal truth, or even the world's truth.
- When we edit, we believe that what we are doing will make the world a better place. When we discuss, we improve. We promote. We shout down. We deny. We accept. And the cycle continues. We do not shout down out of hatred, no. We shout down out of respect. We shout down because we love this place. And we realize that at the end of the day, doing what we want comes second to doing what the collective wants. It took me a while to realize that, but once I did, editing Wikipedia became less of an obligation on behalf of a certain group and more of a responsibility on behalf of all humanity. Once we have realized that, in the eyes of Wikipedia, we have achieved perfection. Cessaune (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't stop! Levivich (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. The kind of discussion I always sought and never found, before I retired. Motion for exception to WP:NOTFORUM. Second? Seconded. Voting? Voting unanimous in favor, motion carries. 161.97.225.237 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC) (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)
- That said, I'll differ with the content. Some keep coming back because they love the truth; I submit they are in a minority. Others keep coming back because they like (and maybe need) the mental stimulation and challenge. Others are here to push a political agenda, which is different from a pure interest in truth. Their versions of truth are merely tools employed to achieve larger goals. Then there are those for whom editing is a social outlet, and the average IQ is a bit higher here than over at, say, Facebook. And finally, some keep coming back because they are addicted to drama.
- We are human.
- We live on Earth.
- We can read and write English.
- We have computers or other internet-capable devices.
- We have internet access.
- We have the skills necessary to use it.
- That's about all you can say about "we" English Wikipedia editors as a group. Certainly not "we" love the truth.So I'd call it inspirational and very good writing (a la MLK Jr), but it comes up short in realism. Cessaune should run for political office. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't stop! Levivich (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop. Levivich (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Zero virtiol. None. Zilch. Nada. This is an extremely common tactic with Trump supporters and members of cults. They claim that anyone who criticizes their cult of personality is angry, upset, full of vitriol, and aggressive. There's actually articles about this phenomenon. I also experienced it firsthand when I laid out an extensive argument criticizing the cult of personality around Ronald Reagan. Editors showed up out of the blue just to claim that I was angry and full of vitriol. This kind of reaction appears to be endemic in conservative circles. Anyone who dares criticize their movement or their leaders is cruel and full of hate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have expressed zero emotions or POV about how I feel on this page. What I'm seeing is a massive amount of deflection, projection, and externalization of how Trump supporters feel about having their sacred cows tipped. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Strange, again, as I see no "vitriol" at all, up above. Have you considered that these emotionally-laden observations extend only as far as yourself? Once again, great job distracting from the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think your vitriol for those who disagree with you did more to kill your proposal than anything else. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, yet again. I am always fully open about writing articles from the POV of our best sources, which say "Donald Trump is considered a 'terrorist leader' by national security experts". I notice that you just tried to turn the tables, and make this less about that claim and what our sources say, and more about what you personally believe about me and my motivation. I would like to say that these underhanded tactics reveal your POV much more than they do my own. I have been nothing but above board about my rationale and my goals. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- You probably want to be less open about your desire to push a particular POV (that Trump is a terrorist) into this article. The non-POV-pushing response would have been something like "we will re-evaluate the sources in the future." Levivich (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Talk: Talk page
any way bots or sanctions could be set up to protect the introductory body/faq in the talk page? seems like a pretty silly thing to leave to the whims of internet trolls 216.164.249.213 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Page protection is generally only applied when a persistent problem arises, not as a preventative measure except in unusual or extenuating circumstances. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Lead citation?
Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic.
Does this require a citation, as according to consensus item 58? Cessaune (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, in the body. If it is not cited in the body it has no place in the lede. It does appear to be cited in the body (multiple sources) so ca cite in the lede is superfluous. Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- "58. There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)"
- Off hand, it looks like it might be synth. Using the vague "many" also raises a flag. In any case, a source would clarify. Otherwise a reader would have to find where in the body the items are stated and then go through the sources to try to find where the statement is made. If the reader is unable to find where, then they don't know if it's verifiable or if they just overlooked where it occurred. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that there are entire sections titled Racial views and Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct, I would have serious doubts about the competence of anyone who couldn't find the statements and their sources. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's not the point. This was already argued, and it was decided that, regardless of whether the citation was redundant or found in the lead, that we would cite anyway. Cessaune (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to make it look like it was written by and for idiots, go ahead.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see how citations in the lead makes the article
look like it was written by and for idiots
, Khajidha. Lots of articles cite in the lead, some extensively. Just press the random article button and check for yourself. It's very commonplace. And he is a notable BLP, so I think the citation is deserved. Cessaune (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)- "Someone else did this stupid thing over there, so we should copy them here" is not a good argument. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Again, I don't see how citing in the lead is "stupid". Can you explain that reasoning? Cessaune (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Because the lead summarizes the article. It's entire purpose is to say "this is what I'm going to tell you. To get details, read the article." It's an abstract. Abstracts don't need citations. The article is the citation for the lead. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- We've already argued this and decided that, regardless, we would still cite (consensus item 58), mainly because:
- 1) MOS:CITELEAD says that
the necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
- 2) It also says that
there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
- These two phrases make up the basis of why the consensus was decided that way. Cessaune (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Because the lead summarizes the article. It's entire purpose is to say "this is what I'm going to tell you. To get details, read the article." It's an abstract. Abstracts don't need citations. The article is the citation for the lead. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Again, I don't see how citing in the lead is "stupid". Can you explain that reasoning? Cessaune (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Someone else did this stupid thing over there, so we should copy them here" is not a good argument. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see how citations in the lead makes the article
- Well, if you want to make it look like it was written by and for idiots, go ahead.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's not the point. This was already argued, and it was decided that, regardless of whether the citation was redundant or found in the lead, that we would cite anyway. Cessaune (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that there are entire sections titled Racial views and Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct, I would have serious doubts about the competence of anyone who couldn't find the statements and their sources. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Please see current consensus, item 49, for the presence of the sentence in the lead and it’s wording. The two RfCs that lead to the inclusion of the material in the lead and its current wording are
Proposed shortening of sentence and Should false or misleading statements be mentioned in lead. There’s an entire Racial views section in the body and a Wikilink to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump in the lead sentence - not easy to overlook. Bob, as for the WP:SYNTH, please point out the improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research
. Summing up dozens of sources saying he’s racist/made racist remarks/was critized as having made racist remarks with made many false and misleading statements
isn’t synthesis. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC) I forgot to mention the mysogyny part. That's consensus item 51, based on this and this discussion. There's also Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and, as Khajidha already pointed out, the Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct section in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, because it is a WP:CONTENTIOUS statement that readers expect a citation for. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this is all true. However, we already agreed to cite contentious statements in the lead. Unless we want to change that consensus, it really doesn't matter what is in the body. We would still need to cite it in the lead. Cessaune (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- What is the basis for your view that this is a contentious statement? SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- It cites a "many" with no context. Cessaune (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Because it is summarizing the body! That's the freaking point! This is what I meant. Any reasonable person would understand that an introductory section like this is a summary of the full text that follows and look for context and references there. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- The mistake that you are making is that you assume everybody to be "reasonable", or that people read beyond the leads of an article. Most people on social media don't read an article past the headline. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- If people are THAT stupid, I really don't care about their opinion on this article. As I said before, writing this way is writing for idiots and it is not what an encyclopedia should be doing.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- You really think that people who don't read beyond the leads of articles will read the citations and not come here and complain about the wording? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't propose rewriting anything, just adding more citations into the lead so that those people who don't read past it stop posting here on the talk page about how the lead is uncited, to which we respond "it's in the body", ad nauseum. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be catering to idiots. The ad nauseum response is preferable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I see the point you're making. I remember somebody making the claim a while back that "it is controversial to say that 'many of Trump's comments are racist', but it isn't controversial to say that 'many of Trump's comments have been characterized as racist'." Cessaune (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be catering to idiots. The ad nauseum response is preferable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't propose rewriting anything, just adding more citations into the lead so that those people who don't read past it stop posting here on the talk page about how the lead is uncited, to which we respond "it's in the body", ad nauseum. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- The mistake that you are making is that you assume everybody to be "reasonable", or that people read beyond the leads of an article. Most people on social media don't read an article past the headline. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Many" needs context? I would have thought it's self-explanatory, more than a few. What you seem to be suggesting is that we can't use wording in the lead unless there is a specific source that uses the exact wording. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Because it is summarizing the body! That's the freaking point! This is what I meant. Any reasonable person would understand that an introductory section like this is a summary of the full text that follows and look for context and references there. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- My basis for the view that it is a contentious statement is that our manual of style specifically describes "racist" and "misogynistic" as contentious labels. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- It cites a "many" with no context. Cessaune (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- What is the basis for your view that this is a contentious statement? SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone argument against having this citation is an argument against settled consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- What consensus? Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus item 58. If it can be proved to be controversial, we have already decided that it requires a citation. Cessaune (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, lets have one cite for each claim then. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's contentious, according to that MOS link, unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject - and it's well-sourced in the article text, so how is it contentious? It's like the thing about Ted Cruz and the Rhinoceros. It can be controversial to say that Ted Cruz has a horny forehead, but it would not be contentious to say that about a rhinoceros. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not finding the phrasing
unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject
. Can you point it out to me? Cessaune (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC) - @SPECIFICO: Your interpretation of that sentence from WP:CONTENTIOUS is inaccurate. This is the whole sentence:
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
- It's saying contentious phrases should be avoided unless they're widely used by reliable sources. It's still a contentious phrase either way and the MOS calls for attribution of contentious phrases, which is another reason for a cite. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- The lead sentence doesn't call Trump a racist or a misogynist, so MOS:LABEL, aka MOS:RACIST and WP:CONTENTIOUS, doesn't apply. That leaves the question whether many of Trump's comments and actions were characterized as racially charged, racist, and/or misogynistic. We're dealing with several consensuses. We also have items 30 and 51 that say they were characterized as such, so how can "many" be contentious? That's what Cessaune was questioning originally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's very well attributed in the body, so I am not seeing that there is any requirement to cite it inline at the lead. After many group discussions of sourcing and of whether and how to characterize some of his statements as racist, I don't view this as contentious content. It's not a condemnation, just a fact according to the cited references. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not finding the phrasing
- Consensus item 58. If it can be proved to be controversial, we have already decided that it requires a citation. Cessaune (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- What consensus? Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- WP:LABEL "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The purpose of the guideline is to ask editors to "be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms." I don't think that the use of the term in the article violates the spirit of the guideline. Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants and "shithole countries" and asking non-white Americans to go back where they come from have been widely reported and condemned as racist. That has to be in the article. I cannot think of any other phrasing that doesn't violate the related guideline of WP:DOUBT. TFD (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that there will be a citation in the lead for this item. Since this is a biased article which has little chance of being remedied, maybe the lack of citations in the lead is for the best because it adds to the appearance of bias and readers can be alerted to that by just looking at the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just wanted to compliment the contributors to this talk page - including the haters (you know what I mean) because they provide good evidence for why truth should prevail over vitriol. I find truthful talk pages like this more educational and entertaining than actual Wikipedia articles. I know I'm not supposed to carry on as if it is a forum but I will repeat what I said, that education is very important in making the world a better place. Thank you. Wokepedian (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, on behalf of all Wonkypedians. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Additional detail/context for tax cuts
Existing Text
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. "
Proposed Text
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses, notably with 65% of the tax savings going to the top 20% of income earners and adding an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years.[1][2] The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act." Jrpotts (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Suggested copyedit, also there should be appropriate wikilinks added:
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes predominantly for businesses and individuals in the upper 20% of earners. The legislation was initiated by his cabinet and was projected to add $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years, partly due to its repeal of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act.[1][2]"
SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- If it's not in the body, it doesn't go in the lead, and I believe the proposal is referring to the lead? Too much detail for the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Distributional Analysis of the Conference Agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". Tax Policy Center. Retrieved 2022-08-09.
- ^ "CBO-Appendix B: The Effects of the 2017 Tax Act on CBO's Economic and Budget Projections, page 129" (PDF).
- The existing text above is what is in the lead. Are we proposing a change to the lead? If so, I agree with Space4Time and SPECIFICO that the proposed text would be excessive detail. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 21:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)