→RfC: books in lead: !voting in RfC |
|||
Line 324: | Line 324: | ||
::::And now it's all over the place.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 05:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
::::And now it's all over the place.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 05:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
* [[User:MelanieN]] - NOT FOR HERE. Seems an allegation of Presidency power misuse would best fit at that article, and I think it should move to under #ethics instead of #foreignpolicy. But I’d suggest wait a bit on this aspect as it seems a bit premature with much speculation at the moment and it seems deja vu of collusion delusion wishful thinking. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
* [[User:MelanieN]] - NOT FOR HERE. Seems an allegation of Presidency power misuse would best fit at that article, and I think it should move to under #ethics instead of #foreignpolicy. But I’d suggest wait a bit on this aspect as it seems a bit premature with much speculation at the moment and it seems deja vu of collusion delusion wishful thinking. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
*I think a more nuanced reread of the CNN and related articles are in order. How many times has it got to be argued that patience is a virtue here and if this is something that has staying power it still is better suited in the Presidency or Foreign Policy article, not this BLP. Furthermore, since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from |
*I think a more nuanced reread of the CNN and related articles are in order. How many times has it got to be argued that patience is a virtue here and if this is something that has staying power it still is better suited in the Presidency or Foreign Policy article, not this BLP. Furthermore, since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from countries that are unwilling to investigate previous or ongoing issues? This is not an aberration from the norm at all.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 05:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
::{{tq|since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from contrives that are unwilling to investigate previous or ongoing issues?}} - when the "previous or ongoing issues" are "plz dig up dirt on my political opponentz ok?" then the answer is... since the beginning of the Republic? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
::{{tq|since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from contrives that are unwilling to investigate previous or ongoing issues?}} - when the "previous or ongoing issues" are "plz dig up dirt on my political opponentz ok?" then the answer is... since the beginning of the Republic? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::Also, since this appears to be inappropriate by threatening to withhold U.S. taxpayer dollars ,i.e., public funds (, i.e., not his money). And he is trying to coerce a foreign power to interfere in the upcoming elections by digging up dirt on opponents [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html], [https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176]. I was going to say inviting a foreign power to interfere... but that seems to be an understatement at this point :-D ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 07:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
:::Also, since this appears to be inappropriate by threatening to withhold U.S. taxpayer dollars ,i.e., public funds (, i.e., not his money). And he is trying to coerce a foreign power to interfere in the upcoming elections by digging up dirt on opponents [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html], [https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176]. I was going to say inviting a foreign power to interfere... but that seems to be an understatement at this point :-D ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 07:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::Right. An understatement. There is no dirt to dig up. Biden already admitted that he strong armed the Ukranians.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 14:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Request to go back to semi-protection == |
== Request to go back to semi-protection == |
Revision as of 14:56, 21 September 2019
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Readership | |
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
Highlighted open discussions
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)
RfC: books in lead
A recent discussion saw quite a lot of comments on wanting to change this sentence in the lead: He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal.
Let's discuss to produce a consensus whether it should remain, or be changed. Which sentence should be present in the lead? starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option A (no change):
He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal.
- Option B:
He published several books, including The Art of the Deal.
- Option C:
He has had several books published, including The Art of the Deal.
- Option D: Omit from the lead completely, per WP:UNDUE.
- starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Survey for books in lead
- Option C first choice, Option B second choice - the amount of ghostwriting done on Trump's behalf leaves me uncomfortable with Option A. Reading his tweets, the ghostwriting seems necessary. Between Option B and Option C, as Trump himself is not a publishing company, Option C is preferable. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead, but will accept published, had published, released, contributed to. Donald Trump CLAIMS to have co-authored the books; other informed parties (including the author and publisher) dispute this. A reasonable reader would not take "publish" to mean he stitched the binding himself, but they would think "co-authored" meant he wrote it, which is not supported by the facts. No one thinks "wrote" means "holds the copyright for." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option C or Option D (equally weighted). For me, this is a binary thing. Either we use the accurate "has had published" language (which I freely admit is a little awkward), or we don't have anything at all. Trump is not a publisher or an author, so options A or B would be inaccurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option B or Option A - One need not be a publishing company to have something published, as per the dictionary definition of the word. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 13:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: You just wrote:
One need not be a publishing company to have something published.
Absolutely correct, but you do need to be a publishing company to publish something (leaving aside the whole self publishing thing). That fact that you worded your response the way you did argues that option C is the way to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: You just wrote:
- I think that "published" does not exclude the same meaning present with "has had published". But "has had published" sounds terrible. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option B or Option A. B sounds much more natural than C, and it's similar in structure to the opening line of the It Takes a Village article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option D first choice with Option C as 2nd. Since there are reliable claims that trump did little to nothing in the authorship of the books best to either leave them off or word it more neutral that he has books published about him but without the addition he was somehow the author of them. ContentEditman (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option C (first choice) or Option D (second choice). The most accurate statement appears to be C: "has had published". Since The Art of the Deal is a fairly commonly known book title, it does seem to warrant inclusion in the lead paragraph. Lindenfall (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option C or Option D (equally weighted). Agree with Scjessey’s reasons above. —Eyer (If you reply, add
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message to let me know.) 21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC) - Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead. Since he almost certainly had little to do with their writing, and lies about his role, they do not warrant any mention in the lead, and only short mention in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- B - The usage "published a book" is fairly common, especially where the instigator of the publication, in this case Trump, is not the author. I don't think "published" necessarily entails a press and a truck. As to D. Yes, we do have body content and a separate article for details about this book, but think it was undeniably a significant factor in Trump's early fame, with a brilliant title, and it preceded a lot of other famous Trump branding, such as his TV career and race-related trolling. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option D first choice with (very reluctant) Option C as 2nd. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option D most certainly. He is not well known for being an author or book publisher, and many politicians have written or published books. If we must include a mention, Option C would be the best method, but removing the word "has" from "he has had". Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option C or A seem best of the choices - option A (no change) seems sort of OK because we've not got anything new to really push for a change, and option C seems sort of OK because 'had published' covers the ones he is sole author for as well as the co-authored ones. Though at eighteen, it is "numerous" or "many" rather than "several" books. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- How many books is Trump the "sole author" of? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- He may be the only one credited, but no one seriously believes he penned a single word. He isn't capable of such a feat. That's what his biographers tell us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- How many books is Trump the "sole author" of? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option D. Too messy: you can't easily mention the books without getting into the weeds of his not having written them. Guy (help!) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option A He's a credited author, and that's what we can verify. Art of the Deal is an important book in terms of what it did to his Q score, so I'm against Option D. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option A (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- First choice A, second choice B – Totally oppose D, because The Art of the Deal has been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. — JFG talk 11:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bankruptcies have been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. See what I did there? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, JFG's argument doesn't really hold up, as Donald Trump "notability" primarily derived from him being a loud and proud sexual predator and racist, and we're certainly not putting THAT in the lead. Trump was a laughing-stock throughout the 80s, and TAotD was relentless ridiculed contemporaneously as everyone knew Trump inherited most his wealth and had no skill as a deal-maker. It's no more important than the steaks or the board game. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: No objection from me to adding a line about Trump's business fortunes and misfortunes to the lead. His casino ventures and related bankruptcies are indeed part of his notability. @GreatCaesarsGhost: Thanks for your opinion. — JFG talk 20:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bankruptcies have been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. See what I did there? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option A - I agree the focus should be on "author", and A fits the bill. Atsme Talk 📧 21:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option C first choice, Option B second choice - per User:Starship.paint -ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option A Regardless of Schwartz's regrets or his claim that he wrote it on his own, there remains the fact that the book cites Trump as the co-author. It is also in the first person narrative. Should we then say that it is Schwartz who is telling the tale? Was he the one making the deals? Furthermore, let us suppose the book is full of lies and it qualifies as a work of fiction. We should remember that it was still Trump who supplied those lies. Also, the lede of the Art of the Deal's page states that the book helped make Trump a "household name" in the U.S. It is probably the book that is most associated with Trump when we talk about him as an author. His name on the book is probably one of the reasons why it sold well. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Darwin Naz:Your rationale suggests you are not familiar with acknowledged facts concerning the book's origin, including the word of the head of Random House. For starters, please read WP's The Art of the Deal article. Moreover, as I presume you're aware, every ghostwritten volume is in the first-person voice but that does not warrant the personal conclusions you offer to support citing Trump as author. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 12:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Are we to strike down the authors of these autobiographies or what you refer to as ghostwritten volumes and replace them with the names of their ghostwriters? By the way, in 2019, I still read reports about Ballantine publishing reprints and these still bear Trump's name. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option A for the reasons stated by Atsme and Darwin Naz. Mgasparin (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion for books in lead
Notifying previous commenters:
- @Sdkb, Markbassett, and SPECIFICO: starship.paint (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @May His Shadow Fall Upon You, GreatCaesarsGhost, and JFG: starship.paint (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey, Mandruss, and Lindenfall: starship.paint (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- This RfC does not include options for "released" rather than "published", or for whether or not to include "ghostwritten" (which could be combined with co-authored/published/released/whatever other word), both of which have previously been discussed. I'm on mobile right now, but Starship or someone else, please add them. - Sdkb (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: - I didn't add them because nobody supported them other than you, and we had 10 people in the previous discussion. Too many options makes it harder to achieve a consensus. Furthermore your proposal was the very first one, at the top of the discussion, surely it would have been the most read. starship.paint (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: There was support from multiple parties for "ghostwritten" in last year's discussion, and nothing has substantively changed since then. Regarding "released", I'm honestly somewhat perplexed, since I think I made a reasonably solid case for it, but no one has voiced either support or opposition. If anyone has thoughts about it, they might be able to persuade me to withdraw it, but until then, I object to your dismissing it out of hand by excluding it from the RfC. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: - reading the old discussions, yes, there was support for "ghostwritten", but there was also clear rejections of "ghostwritten". The thing is, while in the above discussion no one has voiced either support or opposition for your proposal, the important part is that almost everyone in the above discussion voiced support for a proposal other than yours. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: - I didn't add them because nobody supported them other than you, and we had 10 people in the previous discussion. Too many options makes it harder to achieve a consensus. Furthermore your proposal was the very first one, at the top of the discussion, surely it would have been the most read. starship.paint (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- This RfC does not include options for "released" rather than "published", or for whether or not to include "ghostwritten" (which could be combined with co-authored/published/released/whatever other word), both of which have previously been discussed. I'm on mobile right now, but Starship or someone else, please add them. - Sdkb (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I regret to say that this RfC seems to be making things worse. We were either at or close to consensus in the previous thread. Now we have a formal RfC that will bring in additional new editors less familiar with the previous discussions or with the decisions made at The Art of the Deal article. Seems like this is excessively formal and likely counterproductive for a relatively unimportant matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I tried my best on this. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- No personal criticism intended. It's a result of the persistent "consensus required" tactic even after that sanction has been deprecated in favor of incremental improvement via revert and modification. Perhaps in the future an alternative to an RfC would simply be to ask an outsider to close the discussion thread. Dunno. The politics articles have lost many good editors since the "special sanctions" fiasco of the past year. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, nobody invited an outside closer yet... so I did what I thought was right. starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt, I meant absolutely no criticism of you. From what I've seen you have been one of the most active and clear-minded editors on this article in recent months. I was addressing the the idea that the best is the enemy of the better, and I was suggesting we try to go with the 24-hour BRD model rather than rejecting incremental improvements by reverting back to a flawed imperfect version and tying ourselves in knots on the discussion page. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, nobody invited an outside closer yet... so I did what I thought was right. starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- No personal criticism intended. It's a result of the persistent "consensus required" tactic even after that sanction has been deprecated in favor of incremental improvement via revert and modification. Perhaps in the future an alternative to an RfC would simply be to ask an outsider to close the discussion thread. Dunno. The politics articles have lost many good editors since the "special sanctions" fiasco of the past year. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I tried my best on this. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: You do understand that we're only discussing the lead section here? The ghostwriting thing is already undisturbed in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC) @Muboshgu: Do you have an independent secondary RS that verifies Trump wrote the book? I have not seen anything of the sort, and apparently neither have the editors at the book's standalone article. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, I didn't say he wrote the book. I said he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I saw that you endorsed option A, which does say in WP's voice that he was the co-author. I have not seen any independent secondary RS verification of that. Have you? SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- The cover of the book. He's listed as an author. And everything written about it confirms he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, I am trying to be very clear and simple. The article text you endorse, with A states, in WP's voice, that Trump is the co-author of the book. Surely, you do not consider the cover of the book an independent, secondary, Reliable Source for that statement? Your "credited as an author" is not what option A says. Option A says he was the co-author. That's quite a different statement, and it's one that the article text does not support, per the cited references. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- The cover of the book. He's listed as an author. And everything written about it confirms he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I saw that you endorsed option A, which does say in WP's voice that he was the co-author. I have not seen any independent secondary RS verification of that. Have you? SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, Yes, very much so. It's fine in the body because there is space for the context. In the lede, not so much. We don't need to list every grift there. Guy (help!) 09:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss and JFG: Would either of you mind closing this RfC? If not, could you ask for an admin close? It's just sitting here now, and I believe people have mostly forgotten about it. Mgasparin (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Won't close this myself, as I'm a participant. Too early to ask for a formal close: RfCs are supposed to run for 30 days, unless consensus is obvious (not the case here). Let's wait. — JFG talk 08:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
RfCs are supposed to run for 30 days, unless consensus is obvious (not the case here).
In my opinion that's a common misconception arising from the bot de-listing interval. If RfCs generally run for 30 days, it's because that's easier than fighting the misconception, not because they generally need that much discussion. This is a relatively minor issue, and I'd ask for formal close whenever discussion falls to some undefinable point. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)- Correction: It's more than my opinion, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Won't close this myself, as it's been shown I'm not good at closing discussions like this one. Too much left brain, I'm afraid. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Self-hating
The list of attributes at the foot of the main article would be enhanced by the inclusion of self-hatred. Like his father before him, Donald Trump used until recent years to maintain that his grandfather Frederick Trump had been a Swedish immigrant from Karlstad rather than a German draft-dodger from Kallstadt. This misinformation persisted in his autobiography "The Art of the Deal." This behavior has been attributed by commentators to anti-German sentiment in the United States starting from the time of the two world wars.
Something similar might account for the otherwise incongruous combination of striking military postures and denigrating war veterans while himself having avoided compulsory military service. The reams of published comment on DT must include references to these aspects of his behavior. NRPanikker (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- @NRPanikker: - the burden is on you to provide enough WP:RS to demonstrate that material is WP:DUE for inclusion. starship.paint (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- And even if the OP provides sources, we should be mindful of BLP constraints and the recent RfC consensus to not discuss Trump's mental health in this article. — JFG talk 12:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- The self-hate bit is Original Research. Ergo, nix. We need not get into BLP or additional OR associating "self hate" with "mental health". SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Self-hatred is not a mental illness, rather a part of one's make-up that affects how they think, react and behave in certain circumstances. Regarding BLP, is Trump even a person at present? King James VI said, "Subject and King are clean different things." NRPanikker (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe self-hatred isn't technically a mental illness, but it certainly isn't a psychologically healthy behavior. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Self-hatred is not a mental illness, rather a part of one's make-up that affects how they think, react and behave in certain circumstances. Regarding BLP, is Trump even a person at present? King James VI said, "Subject and King are clean different things." NRPanikker (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- The self-hate bit is Original Research. Ergo, nix. We need not get into BLP or additional OR associating "self hate" with "mental health". SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- And even if the OP provides sources, we should be mindful of BLP constraints and the recent RfC consensus to not discuss Trump's mental health in this article. — JFG talk 12:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Batteries question for those unheard from
JFG and Mandruss suggested I do this as another thread limited to the bit asking about the batteries phrase recently added at the end of the Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle section, so:
For the three-quarters who did not ask for this “batteries” phrase, are you opposed to that ?
Answer (or other thought) below please. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Specifically pinging the ones who did not previously speak to it:
- User:Mgasparin, User:Atsme, User:Bus stop, User:Jack Upland, User:Tataral, User:Scjessey Markbassett (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:Gamingforfun365, User:Rreagan007, User:LM2000, User:Cosmic Sans, User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Bodding. Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:MaximumIdeas, User:Literaturegeek, User:Eyer. Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Replies to pings
Discussion
- User:SPECIFICO Well, this is looking for what folks think about the “battery” closing to the added sentences, from those who had not voiced anything about it in the last discussion. You voiced in favor so weren’t pinged, but circa three quarters of the editors were inputting about other things and said nothing about “batteries” either way. I wanted to find out what (if anything) that bulk of folks thought, and in a roundabout way JFG/Mandruss directed me to do a new separate thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- I personally don't care, the sentence is fine either way to me. I !voted before the other options were added, and I didn't see the need to !vote again after options C and D were added. @Markbassett: I think we are all tired of this discussion, can we please move on? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Look, I'm happy to discuss whether the "batteries" quote is worth including, but I can't support your process of selective pinging, still referring to the previous RfC. Just ask a straight question for/against that quote, and don't ping anyone. — JFG talk 06:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. He can't unping, but he could at least close his own thread as withdrawn. Or somebody else could close it as another process misstep, and I would support that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Umm, what? I note that directed pings were what was used before in a generic ask which got limited response... this seems a bit similar. Markbassett (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. He can't unping, but he could at least close his own thread as withdrawn. Or somebody else could close it as another process misstep, and I would support that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think
Option A: "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy"
represents the best choice. It says the most with the fewest words. References to golf are superfluous. The subject of "exercise" is significant enough to stand on its own. We are telling the reader Trump's view on exercise. (I had voted differently in the past. I am changing my position on this.) Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC) - (edit conflict) This has been discussed so many times in (seemingly) the last 5 minutes that I no longer care. I continue to think
"Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy."
is the best of all the choices, and I am unlikely to change my mind unless/until something new from reliable sources becomes available. And there's no need to ping me to announce a new thread, because I read them all. Reserve pings for drawing attention to responses in older discussions, or when threading is confusing, or when an editor has apparently been inactive in a topic area for a bit longer than normal. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Please start over, link to the article text and previous discussions you reference and state the question so that it can be understood by one and all. Personally, I have two immediate reactions: 1. This article has too many undue synthy tidbits that suggest Trump is corrupt, a racist, a narcissist, a privileged nitwit etc. etc. -- these are each on their face undue and unencyclopedic. 2. There are increasing numbers of RS (mostly not day-to-day media) references that address the same issues and events in Trump's life from a broader perspective and provide reasoned, evidence-based, and DUE assessments of the same issues. I don't recall supporting the "batteries" bit but if I did, I retract pending a complete statement of the issue. 3. The editing environment here seems not to be consensus-based but, even worse than ever, enabling vetos of article improvements by even a single editor. If this is how the page is to work, then the 24-hour BRD experiment should be abandoned. I think it should first have been given a fair try. How can we attract new editors to these articles amid legalistic quibbling over nonsense? SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: When has an article improvement been vetoed by a single editor? Diffs please. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:SPECIFICO acknowledge your retracting support for “batteries”. You had supported the paragraph including it at 21:07, 22 August, though that post seemed somewhat contradictory as it also strongly opposed part of the paragraph. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- I still think
Option A: "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy"
is the best choice. As I said before it gets right to it and it's what he's said. The bit about the body having limited energy sounds a bit OR in that it sounds misleading to me. What I think he probably meant was, only so much time and energy in a 24 hour period, and he wants to use it for something he believes is more productive. Bodding (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC) - The more I think about it, the more it seems to fit better in an article about human longevity and the benefits of healthy exercise. We don't have to add everything Trump says, especially if it's criticism considering his age and seemingly boundless energy. How does inclusion serve our readers? I'm of the mind that it comes across more as pointless criticism, making it quite unencyclopedic. Also keep in mind that when his term is over, there will probably be a lot of whittling down as the political motivations wane and more historians and academics start publishing facts and actual results which will replace all the speculation. RECENTISM and allegations of Russian collusion come to mind. Atsme Talk 📧 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Presidency section is redundant with Presidency article. Saves 100Kb space to merge redundant material.
The Trump biography is presently templated for length issues. When his Presidency article was templated last January nine months ago, I was able to save 100KB in that article by merging the Foreign Policy section there with the Trump Foreign Policy article on this link [1]. This worked last January on the Presidency article, and now a similar redundancy can save about 100Kb in the Trump biography article here since the "Presidency section" here is redundant with the Presidency article for Trump. It is possible to save the entire section space here by linking to the Presidency article and then merging a significantly shortened version of that section on Presidency here into the "Political career" section directly above it here as a subsection. That saves nearly 100Kb by not duplicating redundant material in this Trump Biography article which is already covered in detail in the Trump Presidency article. CodexJustin (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- A similar proposal failed to reach consensus in July, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 101#Transclude Presidency?. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for this comment and link. I have placed this as a 1RR edit to show that the space saving is over 100Kb. CodexJustin (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- There's no way we can remove a bunch of information about his presidency from this article. His presidency is the most important thing there is to report about him. If we want to trim material that is redundant with other articles, trim the business or family sections. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for this comment and link. I have placed this as a 1RR edit to show that the space saving is over 100Kb. CodexJustin (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- About the length maintenance tag I think it should be removed from the top of the article. Having a standard tag at the top inviting editors to remove content from this article where almost every large removal of content to reduce size will be challenged and discussed endlessly on the talk page seems like a bad idea to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's a good idea to invite editors to think of ways that this article's size can be reduced. After all, only extended confirmed editors can make any changes to the article. I encourage efforts by CodexJustin and others to propose drastic reductions in size like this, by providing a summarised version of large sections which have their own articles. In the case of Trump's presidency, there are many articles about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that some sections of this article can be reduced dramatically if spinoff articles cover the content better. But I oppose any notion of eliminating the Presidency section, which would be unprecedented in the biography of any U.S. president. I think that the Business career and Media career sections are much better candidates for this type of treatment. Take a look at George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the two other presidential biographies of the Wikipedia era. Take a look at other biographies of presidents who were already very famous at the time of their election, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower. All these articles have both robust Presidency sections and even more detailed "Presidency of . . ." spinoff articles. We should maintain that model for the Trump article, since his presidency is by far the most historically important part of his biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's a good idea to invite editors to think of ways that this article's size can be reduced. After all, only extended confirmed editors can make any changes to the article. I encourage efforts by CodexJustin and others to propose drastic reductions in size like this, by providing a summarised version of large sections which have their own articles. In the case of Trump's presidency, there are many articles about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Trim Presidency, do not eliminate business and media. More of his life, fame, and personal events happened then and it’s
notless the problem. The BLP article needs to everywhere try to be concise and to filter harder to be BLP and to things with lasting impact. The Eisenhower article manages *eight* years of Presidency and his prior considerably more historic life without the help of ~1000 side articles, this just needs the hard effort of pruning story-du-jour and trivia. Keep the maintenance tag up until it’s no longer an oversized article, if ever. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC) - @Cullen328, Markbassett, and Onetwothreeip: There seems to be a view among the editors responding above that trying the same approach I did on the Presidency section might work better if applied to either the Business section or the Media section instead. Let me know if I can assist on either of these. When I reduced the Presidency section here using a 150-word length limit, there appeared to be concerns that this was too short. Maybe a 400-word limit or 700-word limit on summaries would work better before the more lengthy remaining narratives are merged into the "sister" Trump articles. The Trump biography article is over 400Kb going on 500Kb, while the Trump Presidency article is over 300Kb going on 400Kb, both of them are much too long and have been templated for length by other editors. If there is any consensus for a word length that is practical, then it might be possible to make progress on reducing the size of these very long Wikipedia articles. The redundancy between the presidency section here in the Trump biography article and the Trump Presidency article indicates a very high degree of duplication of material. Let me know if such a word-length limit approach is useful, while merging the more lengthy remaining narratives into the "sister" Trump articles. CodexJustin (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Taking a quick look at the Presidency section, I see inconsistent levels of detail and lots of OR as to what's significant enough to be in this biography. For example, why doesn't the "early" section mention hiring and firing Mike Flynn as the first of his many DNI? The entire larger Presidency sections could be consolidated and should be written in summary style, rather than the itemized or play-by-play that's there now. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've always thought that the Donald Trump article should be much smaller than it is, and cover only the most enduring aspects of his presidency. The remainder can go into the spin-off article Presidency of Donald Trump. In practice, this might be tough. Anything Trump-related is a beacon for WP:RECENTISM, and editors seem intent on covering everything in excruciating levels of detail. So I'm sure there would be disagreement on what to keep... but you're 100% right that there is an extreme level of redundancy here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@May His Shadow Fall Upon You, Mandruss, and SPECIFICO: There appears to be some agreement that it might be possible to shorten the article by removing large redundant sections as Mandruss has done in his version of the Presidency section above by using a 700 word length rule for the section here this. The result looks very promising. The same approach can by applied to the Business section as well using a similar 700 word rule for condensing the redundant material with redirects to the Main page for this material. Together this looks like it would be 150Kb-160Kb reduction in the Trump biography article here if both the Presidency section and the Business section follow the 700 word rule. Possibly Mandruss can give us a link to see what a 700 word version of the Business section would look like, similar to what he did for the Presidency section above. This looks like a large saving in redundant space which would alleviate the length issues with the current Biography article here which is still over 400Kb in length, and which is too long. The 160Kb reduction plan here if adopted would result in a 240Kb Trump biography article which seems worthwhile to do. CodexJustin (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- @CodexJustin: That was not a 700 word length rule, or any word length rule. Editors at this article (and likely editors at all articles) don't like length rules, and insist that they are unnecessary, even while oblivious to the fact that nothing else has worked despite being given ample chance to work. Ideology often trumps empirical observation, sadly.Rather, that was the sandboxing of the proposal that failed, which I linked above. If you read the proposal, you will see that it's the transcluded lead of the Presidency article. Thus, I didn't write it, and I'm not particularly good at that kind of thing, so I wouldn't be able to do the same for a different section unless there a sub-article whose lead could be transcluded.And it's Mandruss, not Madruss. Nice to meet you. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: My own 150-word version of the abridgement is here [2], and your transcluded 750 word version of the Presidency article lede section represents an adequate approach even if it might need further adaptations. As an analogy, for discussion purposes, word-length limits are used all the time for controlling Plot section length in film articles throughout Wikipedia, which target the 400-700 word length, and this works fairly well. The difference is that the Trump biography article needs to try to control 100Kb redundant section lengths of material with very large overlaps in repeated and redundant materials. The word limit approach, whether 400-words, 700-words, or 1000-word length, seems like it might be worth some discussion since the Trump Biography article is currently over 400Kb in size and going on 500Kb in size which is too long. Can this word-length limit option be looked at as a possible approach to control redundant and duplicated material on Wikipedia? CodexJustin (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Can this word-length option be looked at as a possible approach to control redundant and duplicated material on Wikipedia?
You pinged me, so I assume the question is for me. It can as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not the one you need to convince, and I doubt you'll convince them. The anti-rule mind-set – the mantra, "If it's too long, just discuss it and it will get shorter. If it doesn't, repeat. Forever." – is hard to overcome. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)- Are you stating that my 150-word summary version [3] is unusable or that it should be lengthened to 400-words, or 700-words? CodexJustin (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: My own 150-word version of the abridgement is here [2], and your transcluded 750 word version of the Presidency article lede section represents an adequate approach even if it might need further adaptations. As an analogy, for discussion purposes, word-length limits are used all the time for controlling Plot section length in film articles throughout Wikipedia, which target the 400-700 word length, and this works fairly well. The difference is that the Trump biography article needs to try to control 100Kb redundant section lengths of material with very large overlaps in repeated and redundant materials. The word limit approach, whether 400-words, 700-words, or 1000-word length, seems like it might be worth some discussion since the Trump Biography article is currently over 400Kb in size and going on 500Kb in size which is too long. Can this word-length limit option be looked at as a possible approach to control redundant and duplicated material on Wikipedia? CodexJustin (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Fix needed for line in Racial Views
User:Scjessey - I'm glad you agree to the part of (my edit) that "shitholes" in paragraph 5 of the Racial Views section was a misquote for Trump's saying "shithole countries" (alleged by Durbin) during a negotiation about four countries in Temporary protected status. However, the part undone by you (here) still needs fixing. The cite to Guardian about global rebuke for 'shithole' remark is suitable for use in paragraph 5 about that topic, but it is not appropriate to duplicate the topic and it is not sufficient WP:V for the broad claim in paragraph 1 "Trump has been condemned as a racist within the U.S. and abroad."
- The cite says Trumps remarks were racist, it is improper conflation to say that as "Trump has been condemned as a racist".
- The cite does not support "U.S." as none condemning him nor saying "racist" is in that cite. The only U.S. mention seems to be Dick Durbin insisting the reports were correct, that shithole was said repeatedly, and that it was used in the context of African countries.
- The "abroad" is exaggerating -- remarks being said as "racist" is only tied in the article for three governmental entities -- the UN Human Rights spokesperson, El Salvador, and Botswana. There is also at the end a single quote at the end from Blessing Dlamini, a 45-year-old administrative assistant which does call Trump a racist but that is not enough to support inclusion of a line in this article with the description as "abroad". (Though I suppose the Guardian writers themselves would also qualify as 'abroad', just two seem not enough.)
- The bulk of the nations cited use different words. The African Union, the Vatican, Haiti, Uganda,and South Africa are mentioned as rebuking with other words like "harsh and offensive", "lack of respect and ignorance", and "abhorrent". To just say the word racist as the summary of these, without attribution, seems an misportrayal that is unnecessarily inflammatory and contrary to WP:RACIST and WP:BLP.
- Finally - the line 1 is just too vague and gives an exaggerated impression by not specifying the event(s) involved or the attribution of who said "racist".
While I don't doubt that in the U.S. and abroad Trump is called many things (both praised and reviled), this cite is just not WP:V for the line as written. I suggest that I move the cite again to the section it relates to, but since you want the line in paragraph 1 think it would be appropriate to leave that line with a 'citation needed' tag for you to provide as able. RSVP, cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- The current text appropriately represents the cited sources. Your points read as nitpicking to misrepresent the well-cited content. We could add additional sources that would address your nits -- e.g. "condemned as racist" -- but the tone and substance of the article text is consistent with mainstream reporting. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Racist appears to be an opposition "talking point", and not too unlike MB, I question its verifiability. Brazile summed it up nicely from a NPOV, and that is what I believe we should be looking at as well. Atsme Talk 📧 14:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- We are not using the Democratic Party as a source. We use RS. I don't know if this is a "talking point". But, if it is what RS say, that's not relevant. O3000 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm just not seeing a need for a change. The text as presented encapsulates nicely what has been reported in mainstream reliable sources. I know consensus can change, but it is getting a little tiresome rehashing this over and over again. We are going to need to see something new to make a change something to consider. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that what is presented in mainstream RS is what we are supposed to include and when there are updates, we include them as well. There are several RS that dispute/question the waning claim of racism, and the one I linked to above is one of them that can be cited, but we also have NYmag and RealClear Politics which I confirmed is a RS via RSN, among others. It's time to update the old news with new news that will actually stand the test of time because it is based on factual evidence rather than opinion. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- We've been careful not to label Trump a racist, but we do have ample cited sources for the way we handle this difficult issue in the current text. Donna Brazile, who's really quite marginalized nowadays, is disagreeing with something the current article does not say. So we are all in with her, right? SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Atsme: First of all, you did not "confirm" the article in RealClear Politics, which is actually a syndicated opinion piece from Creators Syndicate, in that thread you linked to. That refers to an entirely different article from a different source. Second, there is no "dispute" in reliable sources about this so-called "waning claim" of Trump's racism. If anything, more and more reliable sources have begun to label Trump in this way as more evidence of Trump's racism has come to light and the media gets more comfortable with the word. It is so unusual and extraordinary to be in this position, it took a while for the media to come around to it. And as SPECIFICO says, we don't actually label Trump a racist (even though many reliable sources do). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that what is presented in mainstream RS is what we are supposed to include and when there are updates, we include them as well. There are several RS that dispute/question the waning claim of racism, and the one I linked to above is one of them that can be cited, but we also have NYmag and RealClear Politics which I confirmed is a RS via RSN, among others. It's time to update the old news with new news that will actually stand the test of time because it is based on factual evidence rather than opinion. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm just not seeing a need for a change. The text as presented encapsulates nicely what has been reported in mainstream reliable sources. I know consensus can change, but it is getting a little tiresome rehashing this over and over again. We are going to need to see something new to make a change something to consider. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- We are not using the Democratic Party as a source. We use RS. I don't know if this is a "talking point". But, if it is what RS say, that's not relevant. O3000 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Racist appears to be an opposition "talking point", and not too unlike MB, I question its verifiability. Brazile summed it up nicely from a NPOV, and that is what I believe we should be looking at as well. Atsme Talk 📧 14:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- UserScjessey OK, go ahead with that “could add additional sources”. That could make the V fine, if you want to keep the line. To me the line seems not worth it as unspecific and unremarkable. (Nothing remarkable in being criticized abroad as being racist... for example, JFK was criticized for racist hypocrisy.). But there has to be a cite that actually SAYS what is put into text, not just any old cite like this one was. The wording of WP:V that I was following is fairly explicit for this: “Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.” If one doesn’t give a cite of US criticism, the line cannot say US criticism; if doesn’t give a cite re calling Trump a racist then the line cannot say re he is called a racist. Shouldn’t be too hard to find, but either more is put in or the line has to go. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Whistleblower complaint
I suggest this needs a more prominent place now, perhaps its own article, rather than its current location under Presidency of Donald Trump#Foreign policy. This is shaping up as a very big deal.
On August 12, 2019, an unnamed intelligence official filed a whistleblower complaint with Michael Atkinson, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), under the provisions of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA). Having found the complaint both urgent and credible, on August 26 Atkinson transmitted the complaint to Joseph Maguire, the acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Under ICWPA, the DNI "shall" within seven days of receipt forward the complaint to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Maguire declined to do so, and House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) chairman Adam Schiff was made aware of the complaint's existence and asked Maguire why he had not provided it. Schiff asserted Maguire stated he had been told to withhold it on direction from a "higher authority" because it involved an "issue of privileged communications." The DNI is a cabinet-level position. Schiff stated he was also told "the complaint concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community." On that basis, the White House and Justice Department informed Maguire that the complaint was not within the purview of the ICWPA and thus it should be withheld. On September 13, Schiff subpoenaed Maguire to appear before the HPSCI. On September 18, The Washington Post reported that the complaint concerned a "promise" Trump had made during communication with an unnamed foreign leader. White House records showed Trump had had communications or interactions with five foreign leaders during the five weeks before the whistleblower complaint was filed. During a previously scheduled closed-door hearing before the HPSCI on September 19, Atkinson told lawmakers that the complaint referred to a series of events, and that he disagreed with the position that the complaint lay outside the scope of the ICWPA, but declined to provide details. The Post reported that day that the complaint related to Ukraine, and the following day reported that Trump had in a July 25 conversation pressed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate matters surrounding Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, a potential Trump challenger in the 2020 presidential race. The New York Times reported that Trump asked Zelensky to speak with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who for months had been urging Ukraine to pursue an investigation of the Biden family.
soibangla (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is only about a week old. I think we need to let the story mature first so that any lasting impact can be ascertained. WP:RECENTISM May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 21:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is by no means ready for its own article. In fact it is not ready to mentioned here at Trump's biography. At this point there is nothing confirmed, no actions have been taken. Congress has requested information, the administration is refusing it to provide it, in other words: just another Wednesday. It could turn out to be important; it could turn out to be minor; it might never get beyond the stonewalling. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fascinating. Far too early. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Every time one of these incidents comes up -- from the Lavrov-Kislyak meeting when Trump betrayed Israeli intelligence, to the Helsinki "can't imagine it would be Russia" bit, to the MBS/Saudi apologist stance in the Khashoggi execution, the lovely letters from "Kim in Korea" -- every one of these times, important Trump article content gets quashed as UNDUE or NOTNEWS or "it must be Wednesday".
- But nearly 3 years into the Trump presidency we now have RS that give summary treatments of what they describe as a highly significant pattern of behavior by Trump. I agree we editors should not be picking examples or judging on the spot which incidents will ultimately be most prominent. But this unprecedented pattern of behavior in office must be presented and characterized in a summary as RS describe it. And we now have a pattern of a dozen top national security and foreign affairs professionals quitting or being fired by Trump. I don't see that we've given due weight to that big picture in the current article text. Forest/trees. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
President Donald Trump’s administration has released $250 million in military aid for Ukraine...This week, three national security committees in the Democratic-led House of Representatives announced that they were launching an investigation into whether Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and possibly others had been trying to put pressure on Ukraine’s government to assist in Trump’s re-election campaign. The committees had said they would investigate whether withholding the military aid was part of Trump’s effort “to coerce” the Kiev government into launching an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his family...Two and a half weeks before the complaint was filed, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
soibangla (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, looks horrible. Still too early for an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- The Rudy/Ukraine story could be tied to the whistleblower. Or, it could have nothing to do with it at all. It's all just speculation at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's see where we stand on this fast-breaking story. Almost all of the details in the proposed paragraphs above are unconfirmed and are based on press reporting based on a few anonymous sources. But is there anything here we can report as fact? There is one thing that is actually confirmed and public. That is that the administration - specifically the White House and the Justice Department - have intervened in the whistleblower process, by refusing to allow the report to be forwarded to Congress by the people who are by law supposed to do so, specifically the inspector general and/or the acting DNI. In their public comments, Trump himself has in effect confirmed that it concerns a phone conversation with a foreign leader, and Giuliani has virtually confirmed that it involves Trump withholding money from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigates Joe Biden's son. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's what is so remarkable about the situation the United States is currently in. Even these very first details of the story, which perhaps only scratch the surface of the scandal, are astonishing and disturbing. Using the office of the presidency to potentially alter the outcome of an election by exerting influence on a foreign country with strong ties to a foreign adversary, and then obstructing any potential investigation into the matter, and then lying about the whole thing on national TV. And despite all that, we are talking about taking a step back to allow the story to mature in case nothing ever comes of it. In fact, I'm one of the people who is calling for restraint, and I hate myself for it. Incredible times, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: I know that you did not intend this, but "Anonymous Sources" reads like "Illegal Aliens" and other POV linguistic legerdemain. The sources are known to the journalists and the journalists' published works are RS for these articles. "Anonymous Sources" makes it sound like internet conspiracy gossip and encourages or enables less thoughtful editors to dismiss these sources. Note that as I said above, I am not suggesting we editors pick and choose among recent events for immediate article inclusion, but let's not go too far in the other direction. Meanwhile, it's pretty extensively reported that Trump either does not understand, or does not care to fulfill, a president's role in foreign relations. And this would be the basis for current article text without precipitous or undue or WP:OR selection of every example. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the NYT and WaPo are reliable sources, but when we use something from them based on anonymous sources I like to say "reportedly" rather than stating it as fact in our voice. When I say anonymous sources, I mean that I don't know who they are. I have said this before: my way of reading any news report is "who says so and how do they know?" In other words, what are the reporters' sources? In this case, I don't know who says so or how they know, I just have to take the reporters' word for it that they are credible. In contrast, we have material from Trump, Giuliani, and Adam Schiff - named sources who can be cited as the source of whatever we say. Interestingly, Trump and Guiliani have basically confessed to extortion - namely, withholding money Ukraine is supposed to get, and demanding a political favor before it will be released. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
namely, withholding money Ukraine is supposed to get, and demanding a political favor before it will be released.
To the extent that this is used to address the encyclopedic value of this incident, I should note - that's exactly the purpose of foreign aid. Foreign aid is given primarily to influence the behavior of other countries, to either pull the strings on a decision or deny another country those strings. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the NYT and WaPo are reliable sources, but when we use something from them based on anonymous sources I like to say "reportedly" rather than stating it as fact in our voice. When I say anonymous sources, I mean that I don't know who they are. I have said this before: my way of reading any news report is "who says so and how do they know?" In other words, what are the reporters' sources? In this case, I don't know who says so or how they know, I just have to take the reporters' word for it that they are credible. In contrast, we have material from Trump, Giuliani, and Adam Schiff - named sources who can be cited as the source of whatever we say. Interestingly, Trump and Guiliani have basically confessed to extortion - namely, withholding money Ukraine is supposed to get, and demanding a political favor before it will be released. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- So an unnamed source makes an undisclosed accusation against Trump. Probably does not belong in this article because so far it has received little coverage compared with overall coverage of the subject. Today's headline news is not necessarily significant to someone who makes headlines every day. But you don't need permission to create an article. I think that it is notable because of its extensive coverage. It doesn't have to be significant to this article to meet notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Stories have significance because of the weight of its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. All you can say is that because there are allegations of ilegality, it will become one of the major issues of the Trump presidency. But we don't know yet. TFD (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Soibangla NOT FOR HERE. The Presidency is the right article, maybe more #ethics than #foreignpolicy. Thanks for doing the first draft there, some streamlining and dequotification May happen... an example of how starting before the 48 hour waiting period gets some OBE by the next day. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Enough with the "48 hour waiting period" fiction, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Its a simple observation ... the first day a story breaks things are confused, rapidly changing and has not accumulated WEIGHT. A rush to insert whatever is in the morning feed is a bad idea. See also WP:Recent and WP:NOW. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Enough with the "48 hour waiting period" fiction, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Money-for-investigation angle
Sheesh, I can’t believe this. Giuliani in a tweet has confirmed the "you must do this investigation if you want your money" aspect of the situation. He said, "The reality is that the President of the United States, whoever he is, has every right to tell the president of another country you better straighten out the corruption in your country if you want me to give you a lot of money. If you're so damn corrupt that you can't investigate allegations -- our money is going to get squandered.” [4] How are we going to cover this? It’s got to go in here somewhere. IMO the whistleblower issue is not ready for prime time - and we don't even know if it is about this or something else. But the Ukraine-money issue has been reported for months and is firmly established now. I think we should find a way to put it in the article. We should discuss it here first, of course. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- It appears (from that CNN article and from other articles) that the request was that Ukraine investigate alleged interference in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton. That included an allegation that Joe Biden put pressure on Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company on which Hunter Biden was a board member. This all sounds a little more nuanced than "you have to investigate Joe Biden to get this money", although I suppose it could be reduced to that level of simplicity if enough essential facts are carved off. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Those would also be investigations intended to help Trump in his presidential campaign - right? This is still a political demand - "open investigations so I can use them in my campaign, or I won't give you the military aid money that Congress allocated for you." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- It appears (from that CNN article and from other articles) that the request was that Ukraine investigate alleged interference in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton. That included an allegation that Joe Biden put pressure on Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company on which Hunter Biden was a board member. This all sounds a little more nuanced than "you have to investigate Joe Biden to get this money", although I suppose it could be reduced to that level of simplicity if enough essential facts are carved off. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to put it in this article, as I suggested: where would it go? Our "foreign policy" section is pretty bare-bones, by consensus, with readers being directed to the "Foreign policy of Donald Trump" article for details. And there is currently no subsection about Ukraine. I'm not sure if this even really is a story about Ukraine; it may be more a story about how he is running his presidency. It may be that as far as this biography is concerned, this story will have to wait - until we write a new subsection or article about his use of presidential power to benefit himself, financially and politically. In the meantime we can cover it in the Foreign policy article. Any others? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Someone else just created an article: 2019 Trump-Ukraine Scandal. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting! I doubt if there is enough well-sourced information for such an article, and that title will never fly. I think the paragraph I wrote for the Foreign Policy article is about as far as we can go right now. Here it is, if anyone wants to copy anything from it. (That's legal here, y'know.) -- MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- There's plenty of reliable source material going back months, it's just that most of it flew under the radar of people who weren't following it closely, but now it's all coming together in light of recent developments. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- And now it's all over the place. Volunteer Marek 05:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- There's plenty of reliable source material going back months, it's just that most of it flew under the radar of people who weren't following it closely, but now it's all coming together in light of recent developments. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting! I doubt if there is enough well-sourced information for such an article, and that title will never fly. I think the paragraph I wrote for the Foreign Policy article is about as far as we can go right now. Here it is, if anyone wants to copy anything from it. (That's legal here, y'know.) -- MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN - NOT FOR HERE. Seems an allegation of Presidency power misuse would best fit at that article, and I think it should move to under #ethics instead of #foreignpolicy. But I’d suggest wait a bit on this aspect as it seems a bit premature with much speculation at the moment and it seems deja vu of collusion delusion wishful thinking. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think a more nuanced reread of the CNN and related articles are in order. How many times has it got to be argued that patience is a virtue here and if this is something that has staying power it still is better suited in the Presidency or Foreign Policy article, not this BLP. Furthermore, since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from countries that are unwilling to investigate previous or ongoing issues? This is not an aberration from the norm at all.--MONGO (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from contrives that are unwilling to investigate previous or ongoing issues?
- when the "previous or ongoing issues" are "plz dig up dirt on my political opponentz ok?" then the answer is... since the beginning of the Republic? Volunteer Marek 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)- Also, since this appears to be inappropriate by threatening to withhold U.S. taxpayer dollars ,i.e., public funds (, i.e., not his money). And he is trying to coerce a foreign power to interfere in the upcoming elections by digging up dirt on opponents [5], [6]. I was going to say inviting a foreign power to interfere... but that seems to be an understatement at this point :-D ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Request to go back to semi-protection
There has been much trouble here in the past. Try asking again in 2025. Mgasparin (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I honestly see no reason why this page should be extended protected; Request to go back to semi-protection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino245 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
|