→RfC framing: re |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 335: | Line 335: | ||
I'm interested in opinions about my framing at [[User:Mandruss/sandbox]]. I see nothing wrong with the general question, leaving the specifics for a separate discussion, but some editors call "Malformed RfC question!" when you're not specific. "I can't !vote Yes when I don't know what content would be added." Then, when you're specific, many of the !votes are Opposes that propose a different specific, and consensus for any one specific is impossible. Comments? ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
I'm interested in opinions about my framing at [[User:Mandruss/sandbox]]. I see nothing wrong with the general question, leaving the specifics for a separate discussion, but some editors call "Malformed RfC question!" when you're not specific. "I can't !vote Yes when I don't know what content would be added." Then, when you're specific, many of the !votes are Opposes that propose a different specific, and consensus for any one specific is impossible. Comments? ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Probably need another RfC if this one closes as including it, to selected a wording among possibilities. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
:Probably need another RfC if this one closes as including it, to selected a wording among possibilities. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
::I understand. Still, no matter what you say in the RfC opener, many editors will respond with "I can't !vote Yes when I don't know what content would be added." Combined with other No !votes, there will likely be enough of that to kill a Yes consensus. If the Yes consensus is killed, there is no follow-on RfC. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 19:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== AfD notice == |
== AfD notice == |
Revision as of 19:21, 12 December 2017
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LittleRobbinBird (article contribs).
Open RfCs and surveys
- None
Current consensus
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)
10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)
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)
"Donald Trump is a businessman, television personality, and politician..."
I'd like to suggest that the opening sentence of the article be changed to something along the lines of what I have written in the heading of this section. Although I understand that his role as the POTUS is probably the part of that sentence which is the most pertinent to his role in modern society, I would argue that since being President is a title, it's not what should appear as what he is. If you take a look at every other article for Presidents of the United States, they almost all read "... was/is a politician who served as the Nth President of the United States." For formatting purposes and for the purpose of consistency, I would argue that it would make sense to change it to say that he is a politician along with being a businessman and television personality.
As for his role as a businessman, he has not relinquished his role as owner of the Trump Organization and it still operates, therefore it would stand to reason that he could reasonably be considered an active businessman. Regarding him being a television personality, although that's not something that he could still be considered as currently pursuing, he still was once a television personality, just as Ronald Reagan was once an actor, and in Trump's case, I believe it would be correct to call him a television personality while omitting any specification that he no longer does it. Lastly, in terms of him being a politician, though he himself has distanced himself from the term, technically, whether or not he denies it, by definition, since he holds political office, he is a politician. Ergo, I think it would be reasonable to put that in the first sentence as opposed to simply that he is the President and following it up with what he once was, for formatting reasons and for logic reasons.
Benmite (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at great length. See [1] #17. O3000 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- O3000 beat me to it. I disagree with some of your points including the consistency argument (such arguments produce stagnation and stifle progress, and readers really don't get confused because the first sentences of articles about U.S. presidents are different). I don't feel a change is needed there. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I also believe there is no reason to change the current wording of the first paragraph. The first sentence is generally what people see in search results, Google's Knowledge Graph and so on, and what they see first when reading the article. His role as President is vastly more important than his career managing his inherited wealth. The presidency is not the third or fourth most important thing about him, to the extent that we would exclude it from e.g. the Wikipedia snippet that appears in the Knowledge Graph by burying it at the end of the paragraph and force readers to read about relatively mediocre business and TV careers before even mentioning what he is primarily notable for. --Tataral (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Tataral: I agree that the President's role is vastly more important than Trump's business career. However, turning millions into billions is not simply "managing his inherited wealth". If you or I had gotten a kick-start of a couple thousand dollars from our parents and ended up with a few million 30 years later, I don't think anybody would say we were merely good managers of our inherited wealth. — JFG talk 16:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding the "managing his inherited wealth" Forbes have a self-made score on their profiles and Trump has a 5, which in the explaining article they say means "Inherited small or medium-size business and made it into a ten-digit fortune". As far as I am aware that is the only reliable source measuring how self made someone is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Really, we have no idea either of his current wealth or of what part of it came from who what where when, etc. We have no idea how much of his personal life style is paid for out of personal wealth rather than by the investors in his enterprise who benefit from his public image. Let me tell you as an aside from personal knowledge that those Forbes numbers are not worth the paper they're printed on when the subject's wealth is not largely in a published form such as Microsoft shares, etc. It's mainly reality TV viewers who consider him a whiz at business. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The comment about him managing his inherited wealth referred to the fact that he did inherit a fairly large fortune for the era in question, and to reports that he would be richer today if he had simply invested that fortune in index funds during the past 30 years.[2] He also built his fortune/career primarily by continuing the business started by his father and grandmother. --Tataral (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding the "managing his inherited wealth" Forbes have a self-made score on their profiles and Trump has a 5, which in the explaining article they say means "Inherited small or medium-size business and made it into a ten-digit fortune". As far as I am aware that is the only reliable source measuring how self made someone is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Tataral: I agree that the President's role is vastly more important than Trump's business career. However, turning millions into billions is not simply "managing his inherited wealth". If you or I had gotten a kick-start of a couple thousand dollars from our parents and ended up with a few million 30 years later, I don't think anybody would say we were merely good managers of our inherited wealth. — JFG talk 16:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
A writer?
Why is Trump not labeled a writer in the lead? Is it because that falls under his works as a businessman and politician? No need for any "support" or "oppose" comments, I am more interested in the reasons rather than in pushing for its inclusion in the lead.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- TheGracefulSlick Well it is not as important as his other stuff - he's known for being a flashy businessman and being on television, not really for being a writer - like you said, it falls under being a businessman. Also, lot of the books are written by ghostwriters. Most importantly, I don't think RS describe him as a writer, but they do describe him as a businessman. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- That makes sense. My only reservation was that several of his books were successful. But they were business and political works. Thank you for your response.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2017
In his analysis of Donald Trump's electoral victory, sociologist Paul Joosse shows how Donald Trump's charismatic status was strengthened during the campaign through his rhetorical references to a variety of "folk devils;" namely Muslims and Mexican immigrants.[1] CMaterial (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
- @CMaterial: where do you think it should go? Also the sentence seems overly fancy and doesn't seem to say much (though I think some more scholarly analyses might be useful in this article). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Galobtter: I think it should go in the Campaign Rhetoric section, since the academic article analyzed Trumps's campaign rhetoric. If the sentence is overly fancy, perhaps it could be changed to:
Sociologist Paul Joosse studied Trump's campaign rhetoric and found that Trump's charisma grew out of the moral panics he stoked about a variety of "folk devils;" namely Muslims and Mexican immigrants.[1]
Sources
|
---|
|
- @CMaterial: Interesting, but why should we enshrine the opinion of this particular sociologist into Trump's main biography? Surely there are hundreds of opinions about his rhetoric floating around; how is this one notable? — JFG talk 01:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit extended-protected}}
template. —MRD2014 Happy Holidays! 01:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
- @CMaterial: Interesting, but why should we enshrine the opinion of this particular sociologist into Trump's main biography? Surely there are hundreds of opinions about his rhetoric floating around; how is this one notable? — JFG talk 01:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It's notable because it isn't an "opinion floating around"--it is a peer-reviewed study based on 672 pages of collected data from transcripts of all the GOP debates, the debates with Clinton, as well as 20 speeches from campaign rallies. This material was coded using NVivo software to generate the findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMaterial (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the details. I would approve adding the text, based on your second wording. Let's see what other editors think. — JFG talk 13:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist.
I don't see fascist, racist, white nationalist, Nazi, neoliberal, far-right, extremist. Seems Trump's Wikipedia page is depicting Trump in a positive light. AHC300 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Racism, white nationalism, and Nazism are more accurately described as ideological stances. Describing Trump as a fascist is like calling Obama a communist or FDR a dictator for earning a third term in office. Those terms do not accurately describe their actual political positions and display bias on your part. Criticism of Trump, however, does exist in this article and in others about him; to say anyone is depicting the President in a positive light is a far cry from the truth.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, we have discussed this several times before. The sentence is indeed clearly misleading and an outright falsification of what RS actually say. We should consider including some terms widely used by RS, especially far-right, anti-immigrant and Islamophobic, which are probably among the most widely used terms in RS. There has also been very extensive and serious discussion in RS over whether his political views can be described as fascist (see archives of this talk page for more/sources), so we should at the very least mention that in the body somewhere, although possibly not in the lead (many RS consider it a legitimate question, but conclude that he isn't a fascist for example, so it's better to discuss the issue in a little more nuanced way below). --Tataral (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anyone who cannot see how blatantly racist and how much of a white nationalist this joke for a president is, doesn't have their head on straight and is being selective of the information they chose to process surrounding his (bleep)show of a presidency. (Subzzee (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC))
- Islamophobic seems reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Given the numerous prior debates and the currently stable wording, adding new labels to the lead section would best be handled via a RfC. — JFG talk 13:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt it. First you'd need 6 RfC's about the wording of the proposition. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anyway, this inevitably gets into irreconcilable views as to due weight in RS and it would be much more beneficial to our readers to concentrate on detailed article content and give the least consistent summary of it in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 13:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Above all of your suggestions, conspiracy theorist should be added to that section- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_69#Is_Trump_a_conspiracy_theorist?.Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Adding any of those terms to describe Trume would be ridiculous. I'm not going to address all of them, but let's look at one. "Nazi" is a slang term for a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Unless you can produce a RS that say Trump was a member of that party at some point, then "Nazi" is out. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Archiving of live links
@Josve05a, Galobtter, and Bastun: The arbitration remedies read Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
I suggest that any discussion happens here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, was going to create a thread here. I don't think it's useful - all the links can be archived when they become dead as they already have an archive on archive.org. What point is in adding them now when they can be added at any time? Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- See e.g Gamergate controversy where we have archived all links, in case of future linkrot. Better be prepared in advance than in my opinion. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well all of these already have archival links on archive.org - they're just not linked, but those can be added as needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- WP:Other Stuff Exists is not a good enough argument for such a different article. This page has lots of reference and even exceeded the template limit, therefor the archiving of links is not as cheap as it is on other pages. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Problem I have with this is a bit different than download time. This article has 642 refs. It is heavily edited. 112,000 additional, not-easily readable characters, that serve no current purpose, adds to the difficulty in editing the article. O3000 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well all of these already have archival links on archive.org - they're just not linked, but those can be added as needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- See e.g Gamergate controversy where we have archived all links, in case of future linkrot. Better be prepared in advance than in my opinion. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Concur that systematic archiving is not useful, complicates editing, and obscures the few citations for which an archive is necessary. — JFG talk 22:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would say it is useful in most cases. The complication to editing should no be the top priority but the reader experience. This article is watched by so many that any editor who would be put but the increased edit difficulty can be replaced by someone else. We should be thinking about what is most useful to the reader. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I complained about the same thing at the Village Pump, here, in October. That was when somebody did the same thing to Barack Obama, "archiving" 392 perfectly good references, and increasing the size of that already too-large article by 22%. I got nowhere. The people who think this is worth doing - or who like using the toy - don't care what it does to the size or readability of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- In this case, I think there's a clear consensus against archiving every link, and if a person repeatedly violates that consensus after being informed of it, they should expect administrative intervention. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per JFG, MelanieN, etc, and in this case it's a 35% increase. I don't dispute the benefit, but cost exceeds benefit. This needs an entry at #Current consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I should have added: in the Barack Obama case, the person who did the archiving reverted at my request. Apparently we don't have to put up with this at articles where we think it is a problem, but I don't think we will get any kind of consensus against it on a Wiki-wide basis. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
So there's clear consensus not to archive; while we'll simultaneously never achieve consensus to not archive. OK... Size is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not paper, and right now it's only 112k. Some (many) of the links will rot over time. Being prepared in advance is no hindrance to anyone (or if it is, nobody has explained why) and will be a net benefit to the reader over time. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- It increases the article text a lot, making it much harder to edit - the problem of text being sandwiched between long refs increases. And there's absolutely nothing to be prepared for - the archives can always be added as needed when the links rot - when links break the archives can be added. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- It does not increase the article text at all. It merely adds several parameters to references (which are only visible when editing). But whatevs, apparently some people think think this is a battle worth fighting... I'm not one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2017
In Personal Details, change "New York City" to "Richmond Hill, New York". Donald Trump was born in Jamaica Hospital in the borough of Queens. There is no such city as "New York City". There is New York which is the city designation for the borough of Manhattan. But Richmond Hill is the city designation for the portion of Queens where Trump was born. The zip code for the city of Richmond Hill is 11418. 207.237.81.84 (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: Establish a consensus; this has been discussed before with consensus for New York City. Richmond Hill is a neighborhood and New York City is a city. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- The consensus discussion is linked at #Current consensus item 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Political Positions Section
The political positions section seems redundant with the domestic and foreign policy sections, which describe his past positions and campaign promises in more detail. Thoughts on removing it/merging it in with them? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a bit messy. We should distinguish his positions as candidate from the actions of his administration. Some of the detailed policy articles have been split along these lines; certainly we don't need as much detail in the main bio. I would advocate waiting until "first year of the Trump presidency" reviews are published in RS, then we will be able to keep and summarize what is deemed important. — JFG talk 01:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Section on his books
We mention his books in the lead and series of donald trump templates etc - yet there's not even a sentence on his books in the body. Per MOS we should try to harmonize the lead and body, so I'm thinking that a few sentences on the book for a section should be added somewhere.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Some paragraphs from the lead of Bibliography of Trump would be useful as a base, and it could be added to a writing and media career section.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also some content and comments relating to his ghostwriter collaborators may be suitable. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- This seems backwards to me. I think the body should mention his books and the Lead should not. He's not exactly notable for writing books, and his most famous book at least was ghost written. ~Awilley (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah possibly.we can remove it. Or rather atleast talk a bit more about his business career..Either way will need to add a section on his books, though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should remove the book mentions from the lead but add a section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah possibly.we can remove it. Or rather atleast talk a bit more about his business career..Either way will need to add a section on his books, though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- This seems backwards to me. I think the body should mention his books and the Lead should not. He's not exactly notable for writing books, and his most famous book at least was ghost written. ~Awilley (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Implemented I created a short section on his books and removed it from the lead. The section on his books can be expanded. I'm not 100% about having the writing with the media, but I'm not sure where else to put it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- That location seems fine and I certainly can't think of anything better at the moment. I'm not sure there's enough there to add "Writing and.." to the title of the parent section. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Russia stuff
I created Donald Trump#Investigations to organize the sections related to the Russia stuff etc into one section, instead of having things dumped in #Early Actions. However I can't really think of a good section title nor am I really happy with the section as it is now. Improvements definitely needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So I combined the sections on russia in the campaign, since they're all related in that the campaign ties are being investigated as part of russia's interference and his disbelief of any of the Russia stuff is part of why his interactions with russia have been so scrutinized. However a lot of stuff, while related to his campaign, are occurring/being investigated during his presidency and would fit more chronologically there, e.g Comey's testimony is reported there but also in the #Investigations section. Thinking of combining into one #Russia section in the presidency section..especially with Flynn etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good idea for the "Investigations" and "Russia" sections, thanks! — JFG talk 23:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
"Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor for his role in Ghosts Can't Do It (1990)"
Listing this "award" among his organizational recognitions is irrelevant and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.55.169 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done [3] - If we don't consider the role worthy of a brief mention at Donald Trump#Acting and public image, surely the "award" isn't worth including either. Nobody claims that Trump can act. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- On the same vein, I removed two awards that weren't even notable enough to have articles of their own, nor were mentioned elsewhere in the body. We have a comment ""..and yet the hollywood walk of fame star is there. Frankly I don't even see the point of the whole section. Seems to be just for dumping random fluff that if important can be (and is) in the body. Obama, Bush, Clinton etc don't have such a section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Removing Entirety of Awards etc section
Creating another section so my proposal is more visible; I don't see the point of that section. The collar doesn't seem that important as numerous people get it etc. All the important stuff is mentioned earlier in the body. Is the gaming hall of fame important? Nah. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I guess the collar isn't given to everyone sort of..but if it's that important (which it doesn't seem to be) it can be mentioned in foreign policy in a saudi arabia section..Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- The honorary degrees are not really important..the section can be split off into List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump similar to List of honors and awards received by Barack Obama Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I too had thought of splitting the section, but I realized that Trump is an awkward position. He has a big article, but I am not sure if he has enough awards for a new article. If we do spin off then I suggest we consider to reintroduce the removed awards. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- The honorary degrees are not really important..the section can be split off into List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump similar to List of honors and awards received by Barack Obama Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Done It's a bit short, but it's undue here and there's enough coverage for a separate article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
WaPo possibly useful overview about Trump lying
Here [4]. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- The author is a social scientist who has published extensively on the psychology of lying.", so they are a subject matter expert on lying, and not just some anti Trump journalist. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Didn't we have multiple lengthy discussion on this topic already? Also not sure an opinion column would be the best choice either. PackMecEng (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, we had discussions that kind of felt like name-calling "liar" -- but this is an analytic look at it that may have some encyclopedic weight. As His Excellency says, this is an accredited social scientist, so this is a step in the right direction. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- We would have to be careful with current consensus #7 and #22. I do not dispute her credentials, but given her past publications she is not an unbiased source. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
No. This is not science or analysis; it is opinion. I might almost call it, fake science. No reputable journal would look twice at a "study" like this. In the first place, she compares two totally different things - the self-reported frequency and motivation of lying in the case of her study subjects, vs. an external tally and evaluation of the truth or falsity of his statements in the case of Trump. In the second place, she defines a lie thus: “A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone.” She then admits, "In the case of Trump’s claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president’s intentions were." In other words, she has no valid measurement of Trump's lies (by her own definition), only of his false statements. We should stick with our current language: Falsehoods, yes. Lies, no. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
North Korea
I disagree with this edit to the lead. It changed “he...responded to North Korean nuclear weapons and missile advancements” to “he...escalated rhetoric with North Korea”. The US response has not been rhetoric alone, but also included increased economic sanctions, plus military show of force, so just saying rhetoric is misleading. And the escalation on the US side has corresponded to escalating missile and nuclear tests on the NK side, so it’s inaccurate to suggest that the escalation is from the US side. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Trump both escalated the rhetoric (as did Kim) and responded to missile and nuclear developments (clearly an area where North Korea accelerated in 2017, see List of North Korean missile tests). Therefore I would phrase it as "…responded to North Korea's acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program. We can leave the bellicose rhetoric aside (from both sides). — JFG talk 01:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- That would be okay. Saying that a politician engaged in rhetoric is not lead-worthy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Except that bellicose rhetoric is the major component of Trump's response, at least insofar as it is publicly known. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Plus a bunch of aircraft carriers, joint military exercises, tightened economic sanctions, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- All those plus don't add up to anything. Major RS discussion of his lack of strategy or tactical response. Ships are nothing new and no "response". SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Rhetoric is a response. It may be an ineffectual response but it’s still a response. Same for aircraft carriers and the rest. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Noop. Otherwise the article would also mention how he tied his shoes last Thursday and the Metroliner ran on time 2 days last week. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why did you insist on the lead saying “rhetoric”? You think rhetoric is way more important than tying his shoes? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't. I do. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- You did put rhetoric back in. Why is rhetoric so much more important to you than other forms of response? Because you want readers to think that he’s only engaged in the weakest possible form of response? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't. I do. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why did you insist on the lead saying “rhetoric”? You think rhetoric is way more important than tying his shoes? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Noop. Otherwise the article would also mention how he tied his shoes last Thursday and the Metroliner ran on time 2 days last week. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Rhetoric is a response. It may be an ineffectual response but it’s still a response. Same for aircraft carriers and the rest. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- All those plus don't add up to anything. Major RS discussion of his lack of strategy or tactical response. Ships are nothing new and no "response". SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Plus a bunch of aircraft carriers, joint military exercises, tightened economic sanctions, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I added that statement in, and I phrased it as rhetoric because that's all Donald Trump#North Korea talks about and that's the only major thing I remember to be covered. If the sanctions are important, then it can be phrased as "escalated sanctions against North Korea in response to missile developments." and also covered in that section. This article phrases it as "standoff with Pyongyang continues to escalate." and "provocative rhetoric and suggestions of considering a "preventative war" have raised concerns that he may be more willing to engage in a conflict on the Korean peninsula than past presidents." - the rhetoric seems important to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- The provocative rhetoric also seems notable to me...I remember "Little Rocket Man" making headlines not so long ago. ~Awilley (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah and over months too..little rocket man but also the red line comment and what not. Here's another wapo article on how his comments "threatened genocide" and another that says "North Korea’s words are the same. It’s Trump’s reaction that makes this different." and "problem now is Mr. Trump. He reacts, he answers, he tweets, so he’s making it visible". Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree the rhetoric is significant. The word “response” is broad enough to include rhetoric plus sanctions plus three aircraft carriers and military exercises with Japan and South Korea. All that is covered by the word “response”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah but with that version, it doesn't say much. "he...responded"..okay he responded. For all you know he responded by being nicer to North Korea, by trying to placate them. What about "increased hostility against North Korea"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to characterize the response, okay, but it would be better to say something like “increased pressure”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- So the current proposal is to say he “pressured North Korea to reverse the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah but with that version, it doesn't say much. "he...responded"..okay he responded. For all you know he responded by being nicer to North Korea, by trying to placate them. What about "increased hostility against North Korea"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree the rhetoric is significant. The word “response” is broad enough to include rhetoric plus sanctions plus three aircraft carriers and military exercises with Japan and South Korea. All that is covered by the word “response”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah and over months too..little rocket man but also the red line comment and what not. Here's another wapo article on how his comments "threatened genocide" and another that says "North Korea’s words are the same. It’s Trump’s reaction that makes this different." and "problem now is Mr. Trump. He reacts, he answers, he tweets, so he’s making it visible". Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- The provocative rhetoric also seems notable to me...I remember "Little Rocket Man" making headlines not so long ago. ~Awilley (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The word "pressured" is vague and weaselly. We can convey much more of the meaning of our sources by saying, "He mocked and threatened..." which is (1) what they report that he did and (2) what differentiates Pres. Trump's approach from the approaches of his various predecessors. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah. Do agree that mocked and threatened explains how it is different from predecessors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the current language in the lead including the word "pressure" which is much broader than mere rhetoric. The word "pressure" is firmly supported by sources, such as these (emphasis added):
- Calamur, Krishnadev. “Pressure North Korea, Antagonize China”, The Atlantic (December 1, 2017).
- Restuccia, Andrew. “Trump gets ready to 'maximize pressure' on North Korea”, Politico (November 5, 2017).
- DeYoung, Karen at al. “Trump signed presidential directive ordering actions to pressure North Korea”, Washington Post (September 30, 2017).
- Wolfsthal, Jon and Denmark, Abraham. “Will South Korea’s New President Foil Trump’s Attempt to Pressure North Korea?”, Foreign Policy (May 11, 2017).
- Osnos, Evan. “Why China Won’t Pressure North Korea as Much as Trump Wants”, The New Yorker (September 19, 2017).
- Holland, Steve. “Trump expected to pressure China's Xi to rein in North Korea: officials”, Reuters (October 20, 2017).
- Moore, Mark. “Trump to ask Xi to ratchet up pressure on North Korea”, New York Post (November 8, 2017).
- Schearf, Daniel. “US Sanctions, Terror Designation Increase Pressure on North Korea”, VOA News (November 22, 2017).
- Details about the pressure are best left for the article body, not the lead, because there are so many forms of pressure (economic, rhetorical, military, etc.). Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, this proves the point Galobtter and I are making, your argument
"there are so many forms of pressure (economic, rhetorical, military, etc.)"
is the reason why, when a simple concise lede-worthy characterization is available, we should use the more meaningful "mocked and threatened" which will not strain our servers as it uses only a handful more bits. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)- "mocked and threatened" excludes all the other forms of pressure which arguably are just as effective and noteworthy, if not more so. "mocked and threatened" leaves the impression that Trump is all hot air. I don't dispute that Trump has employed hot air, but that's not all he has employed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- No hot air intended, my friend. RS tell us that the dominant strategy of the administration has been mock and threaten. It's not shock and awe anymore. Now, for all we know this is just a ruse to save face for the NKoreans while surrender negotiations are underway per "Art of the Deal" but the WP:WEIGHT of RS reports do not indicate anything of significance beyond bluster. In fact, there's considerable coverage of the failure of the Chinese and others to join us in promoting meaningful pressure of any kind, e.g. regime-threatening economic sanctions, credible military threats, strategy-nullifying air defenses, or other steps. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- The RS that I listed above tell us that the overall strategy of the administration is "pressure" which includes many forms including rhetoric. Trump himself told Tillerson that Trump views rhetoric as the least likely form of pressure to succeed (he said Tillerson was "wasting his time"), and RS don't disagree with that AFAIK. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
which includes many forms
- your words, and you're using that to justify weasel text to save 76 bits of data on the server? C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)- Are you proposing to change "pressure" in the lead to "mocking and threatening" or are your instead proposing to change "pressure" in the lead to "pressure that has included mocking and threatening"? If we have to do one or the other, I would the latter, because it indicates that there have been various forms of pressure, not just mocking and threatening. Also, I think "rhetoric" would sound a lot more neutral than "mocking and threatening". Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anything, that's truly a novel argument (kudos), and it's one that thoroughly denies core Wikipedia policy. Vague weasel language is not considered "more neutral" than concise specific words supported by the weight of RS references. As you may have missed, I have already proposed "the former" above, for reasons amply detailed. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, since you 're proposing that the lead should only refer to "mocking and threatening" North Korea, and should not even spend 76 bits of data alluding to other forms of pressure that have gotten a ton of press (some listed above), then I strongly oppose your suggestion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody supports you. Policy does not and so... SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Policy is to follow reliable sources, not to ignore all the sources you don't like. For example, there are tons and tons of RS referring to Trump's efforts to pressure North Korea via China. I've already listed a bunch of sources above that discuss pressure beyond "mocking and threatening". Let's kick back and see what others have to say here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody supports you. Policy does not and so... SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, since you 're proposing that the lead should only refer to "mocking and threatening" North Korea, and should not even spend 76 bits of data alluding to other forms of pressure that have gotten a ton of press (some listed above), then I strongly oppose your suggestion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anything, that's truly a novel argument (kudos), and it's one that thoroughly denies core Wikipedia policy. Vague weasel language is not considered "more neutral" than concise specific words supported by the weight of RS references. As you may have missed, I have already proposed "the former" above, for reasons amply detailed. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Are you proposing to change "pressure" in the lead to "mocking and threatening" or are your instead proposing to change "pressure" in the lead to "pressure that has included mocking and threatening"? If we have to do one or the other, I would the latter, because it indicates that there have been various forms of pressure, not just mocking and threatening. Also, I think "rhetoric" would sound a lot more neutral than "mocking and threatening". Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- The RS that I listed above tell us that the overall strategy of the administration is "pressure" which includes many forms including rhetoric. Trump himself told Tillerson that Trump views rhetoric as the least likely form of pressure to succeed (he said Tillerson was "wasting his time"), and RS don't disagree with that AFAIK. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- No hot air intended, my friend. RS tell us that the dominant strategy of the administration has been mock and threaten. It's not shock and awe anymore. Now, for all we know this is just a ruse to save face for the NKoreans while surrender negotiations are underway per "Art of the Deal" but the WP:WEIGHT of RS reports do not indicate anything of significance beyond bluster. In fact, there's considerable coverage of the failure of the Chinese and others to join us in promoting meaningful pressure of any kind, e.g. regime-threatening economic sanctions, credible military threats, strategy-nullifying air defenses, or other steps. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- "mocked and threatened" excludes all the other forms of pressure which arguably are just as effective and noteworthy, if not more so. "mocked and threatened" leaves the impression that Trump is all hot air. I don't dispute that Trump has employed hot air, but that's not all he has employed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, this proves the point Galobtter and I are making, your argument
The mocking is more on Kim Jong-un than north korea; pressure seems reasonable considering his efforts with China. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Could you specify what efforts RS describe wrt China? Certainly not lede-worthy ones. What is his overall approach? It is mocking and threatening full stop. RS tell us that the threats are nonsense due to NK's hardened ability to obliterate millions of South Koreans. There's extensive RS coverage that details why POTUS "threats" are meaningless and why such "threats" were never made by Bush, Obama, Clinton, et al. There's also extensive mainstream RS reporting about the extraordinary risks and dangers of Trump's actions wrt North Korea, which on the whole are reported not as effective pressure but rather as provocation and puffery. I recall reporting about POTUS rhetoric concerning China but no consensus of RS that calls his China stuff as rising to the level of "effort." SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- See above: [1] Osnos, Evan. “Why China Won’t Pressure North Korea as Much as Trump Wants”, The New Yorker (September 19, 2017); [2] Holland, Steve. “Trump expected to pressure China's Xi to rein in North Korea: officials”, Reuters (October 20, 2017); [3] Moore, Mark. “Trump to ask Xi to ratchet up pressure on North Korea”, New York Post (November 8, 2017). Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- And more: In Beijing, Trump presses China on North Korea and trade. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- All of which supports my point, thank you very much. In light of these reports, saying POTUS "pressured" China is like saying Obama "pressured" Newt Gingrich to support a single-payer healthcare system, or that God "pressured" us to follow His commandments.
- Come to think of it, both those examples are more plausible. There was at least some possibility that they would be effective. Maybe a better analogy would be my grandson "pressuring" the dog to do his chores for him. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Could you specify what efforts RS describe wrt China? Certainly not lede-worthy ones. What is his overall approach? It is mocking and threatening full stop. RS tell us that the threats are nonsense due to NK's hardened ability to obliterate millions of South Koreans. There's extensive RS coverage that details why POTUS "threats" are meaningless and why such "threats" were never made by Bush, Obama, Clinton, et al. There's also extensive mainstream RS reporting about the extraordinary risks and dangers of Trump's actions wrt North Korea, which on the whole are reported not as effective pressure but rather as provocation and puffery. I recall reporting about POTUS rhetoric concerning China but no consensus of RS that calls his China stuff as rising to the level of "effort." SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
The above discussion is running around in circles, chasing its own tail (so much for dog analogies). If any of the editors involved would like to suggest a particularly insightful change of wording, they are free to open an RfC. — JFG talk 23:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I already furnished great wording. Some of the best wording ever, and only Anythingyouwant is trying (with little success) to oppose it. Instead of telling others what to do, could you evaluate and offer a constructive opinion on the alternative proposed wordings above? SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Are you telling him to evaluate and offer a constructive opinion? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think the wording currently in the article, viz.
[he] pressured North Korea over the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program
, is good enough. Other proposal are either too long for the lede or focusing only on the rhetorical pressure. This article's body and the linked articles about the NoKo situation have all that readers may wish to learn. — JFG talk 00:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)- That's basically a denial of the issues that have been discussed here, so I take that as an abstention. Noted. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I made my position clear; sorry if you are not satisfied with it. Not denying that issues are being debated, you can read my prior comments on that topic, and I also contributed to formulating the current text, after taking remarks from other editors into account. — JFG talk 03:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's basically a denial of the issues that have been discussed here, so I take that as an abstention. Noted. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
"Preceded by" Info Box
In the info box, under preceded by president it says "Barimpack Obama". Vinhan23 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2017
Change "Preceded by Barimpack Obama" to "Preceded by Barack Obama" OkAdamOkAdam (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh it's just me being an idiot..I ctrl+f "impeach" and thus must've accidently add "imp" to Barack. Seriously wonder how that wasn't caught earlier tho. Will check diffs before saving I guess. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Heapings of Self-trout Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Sexual abuse allegations need to be mentioned in the lead
We really need to get the sexual abuse allegations back into the lead section. This was included there for ages before it was unilaterally removed by someone, it has an extremely lengthy in-depth article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (which in itself is a very strong indication that a topic merits mention in the lead section of the main article), and it is one of the most defining features of Trump's presidency, second perhaps only to the scandals related to Russia. In the past someone claimed that there was no longer any coverage of this to justify its exclusion, a blatantly wrong and ridiculous claim. Just from today we have e.g.:
- Trump sex harassment accusers demand congressional inquiry, BBC
- Trump accusers renew sexual misconduct charges against him, say it was ‘heartbreaking’ to see him elected, The Washington Post
- Women detail sexual allegations against Trump, CNN
- Trump accusers band together, seek congressional probe of 'sexual misconduct', Fox News
- 4 Trump Accusers Call On Congress To Investigate Sexual Misconduct Claims, HuffPo
- Women accusing President Trump of sexual harassment call for a congressional investigation, USA Today
- https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2017-12-11/women-accusing-trump-of-sexual-misconduct-seek-congressional-probe, US News & World Report
- Trump accusers call for Congress to investigate sexual harassment allegations against him, ABC News
- Women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct speak out, NBC
- Women who have accused Trump of inappropriate conduct, Reuters
- Three Trump Accusers Seek Congressional Probe, Bloomberg
- Women demand probe into alleged Trump sexual assaults, Al Jazeera
- 3 Female Accusers Call for Congress to Investigate President Trump for Sexual Harassment, TIME
- This is just the tip of the iceberg; I find hundreds of articles about this issue just from today from media around the globe
The coverage of this issue has been continous and extremely extensive for much more than a year – in addition this issue has received coverage (although not as much as today for obvious reasons, given that Trump was a comparatively obscure figure before he won the Republican nomination) for at least 30 years. The sexual abuse allegations are, next to the Russia thing, clearly the single most covered issue related to Trump in reliable sources, possibly the most covered issue. Certainly when we take his whole life into account this is the dominant story. It thus ought to feature prominently here. The fact that it already has a stand-alone article underlines that. Not mentioning it in the lead will clearly come across as strongly partisan/politically motivated and neither NPOV nor encyclopedic in any way. --Tataral (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Concur. Long term coverage and historically significant.Casprings (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 69#Shouldn't something about the sexual misconduct allegations be in the lead? for a recent discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, this question was raised very recently after the Weinstein scandal broke out. Although the discussion was not a formal RfC, opinions varied widely on the suitability of this episode for the lede section. With 5 editors for and 11 against, I do not see a path to obtaining consensus for the lede. — JFG talk 23:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- You assume that few of the opposers would be swayed by the above list showing massive, high-quality RS coverage continuing through present day—which was not clearly shown in the previous discussion—and you may be right. Many editors simply can't be swayed. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I do not assume anything and would be happy to see a RfC if somebody cares to build a well-crafted proposal. Consensus may have changed with recent coverage. — JFG talk 23:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As one of the opposers in the discussion in Archive 69, I'm not swayed by that list at all. The question isn't whether the allegations are notable (they are; and they are discussed in depth at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations), the question is whether they are relevant enough to be included in the lede. As a point of reference, they aren't mentioned in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, Tataral, I suggest we stop farting around and start said RfC. Let me know if you need help framing or formatting it, I don't know how much of that you've done and it's often done wrong. It often helps to do it first in a sandbox, minus the
{{Rfc}}
template. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)- Yes, an RfC would be a good idea. If you to want to help initiating one that would be most welcome. --Tataral (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Tataral: I'll get something started in one of my sandboxes and then post here. No reason why it shouldn't be open to improvement by anybody, within reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Tataral: Basic structure is at User:Mandruss/sandbox. Start by adding the "background" part. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, an RfC would be a good idea. If you to want to help initiating one that would be most welcome. --Tataral (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, Tataral, I suggest we stop farting around and start said RfC. Let me know if you need help framing or formatting it, I don't know how much of that you've done and it's often done wrong. It often helps to do it first in a sandbox, minus the
- You assume that few of the opposers would be swayed by the above list showing massive, high-quality RS coverage continuing through present day—which was not clearly shown in the previous discussion—and you may be right. Many editors simply can't be swayed. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, this question was raised very recently after the Weinstein scandal broke out. Although the discussion was not a formal RfC, opinions varied widely on the suitability of this episode for the lede section. With 5 editors for and 11 against, I do not see a path to obtaining consensus for the lede. — JFG talk 23:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't belong in the campaign context. The allegations relate to Trump personally, not to the campaign.
- As for the lead - I completely agree. I made similar arguments previously (in the middle of the discussion - they were largely unaddressed), and I also proposed that the sub-section on the allegations be shifted from the campaign section to the personal life section (see same discussion for more arguments). If you guys are going to set something up, feel free to take from that discussion as you'd like. Nick845 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- THey should be in the lede. Anderson Cooper stated that the sexual assault allegations against Trump--in the form of the Billy Bush tape and the accusers--were the most covered issue of the campaign. Steeletrap (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly belongs in the article intro, as the focus on his assault allegations are increasing by the day. Particularly in the wake of yesterday's tweet suggesting Senator Gillibrand would be a whore for campaign cash... Trump attacks Gillibrand in tweet critics say is sexually suggestive and demeaning. TheValeyard (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah that is not what the tweet or source says. Might even be a BLP vio. Perhaps you should reconsider what you wrote there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know how to read. Do you? The passage in question, "...and would do anything for them..." has been characterized as sexually suggestive by critics, which the source has covered. TheValeyard (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yup I can read just fine, do you understand WP:OR and that DS extends to talk pages? Because it certainly does not seem like it. Especially when you are putting words in their mouth calling people whores. PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know how to read. Do you? The passage in question, "...and would do anything for them..." has been characterized as sexually suggestive by critics, which the source has covered. TheValeyard (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- My view is that there’s an imminent court decision coming soon about whether the defamation case of Summer Zervos will go forward in state court. I suggest we wait for that upcoming decision, because it makes no sense to haggle about what (if anything) should go into this lead when it’s inevitably going to have to be changed soon, one way or another. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- There will continue to be something just over the horizon for some time. That nothing should be added until it's no longer subject to update is a really weak argument, considering that we are constantly editing the lead. But you are free to !vote No in the upcoming RfC, there is no rule against weak arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah that is not what the tweet or source says. Might even be a BLP vio. Perhaps you should reconsider what you wrote there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly belongs in the article intro, as the focus on his assault allegations are increasing by the day. Particularly in the wake of yesterday's tweet suggesting Senator Gillibrand would be a whore for campaign cash... Trump attacks Gillibrand in tweet critics say is sexually suggestive and demeaning. TheValeyard (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
RfC framing
I'm interested in opinions about my framing at User:Mandruss/sandbox. I see nothing wrong with the general question, leaving the specifics for a separate discussion, but some editors call "Malformed RfC question!" when you're not specific. "I can't !vote Yes when I don't know what content would be added." Then, when you're specific, many of the !votes are Opposes that propose a different specific, and consensus for any one specific is impossible. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Probably need another RfC if this one closes as including it, to selected a wording among possibilities. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I understand. Still, no matter what you say in the RfC opener, many editors will respond with "I can't !vote Yes when I don't know what content would be added." Combined with other No !votes, there will likely be enough of that to kill a Yes consensus. If the Yes consensus is killed, there is no follow-on RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
AfD notice
Editors are invited to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald J. Trump Signature Collection. — JFG talk 00:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)