→Veracity graphs: By your interpretation of wp:ss, {{reply|Scjessey}}, would this article have ''one single sentence'' describing Trump's false statements: "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading claims" ? Same question to User:Mandruss. |
|||
Line 306: | Line 306: | ||
*:{{reply|Oldperson}} I agree, but nobody is saying graphs aren't a good way to portray information. My objection is that in this [[WP:SS|summary style article]], we don't actually ''need'' this information. We only need the ''summary'' that says Trump tells an unprecedented number of lies. Let [[Veracity of statements by Donald Trump]] be the place where we go into the specifics of the frequency and trend of his lies. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
*:{{reply|Oldperson}} I agree, but nobody is saying graphs aren't a good way to portray information. My objection is that in this [[WP:SS|summary style article]], we don't actually ''need'' this information. We only need the ''summary'' that says Trump tells an unprecedented number of lies. Let [[Veracity of statements by Donald Trump]] be the place where we go into the specifics of the frequency and trend of his lies. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
*:: By your interpretation of [[wp:ss]], {{reply|Scjessey}}, would this article have ''one single sentence'' describing Trump's false statements: "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading claims" ? Same question to [[User:Mandruss]]. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 16:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
*:: By your interpretation of [[wp:ss]], {{reply|Scjessey}}, would this article have ''one single sentence'' describing Trump's false statements: "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading claims" ? Same question to [[User:Mandruss]]. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 16:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
*:::My preference would be that we would keep the first paragraph of [[Donald Trump#False statements]] (although I'm not a fan of the way the third sentence is currently worded) and eliminate the second. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion summary=== |
===Discussion summary=== |
||
* ''The following list condenses eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls of discussion, to help gauge consensus and reasoning.'' |
* ''The following list condenses eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls of discussion, to help gauge consensus and reasoning.''*:: |
||
* ''Though I consider the following to be "my" list, you are welcome to add or correct information to '''your own entry'''''—provided you '''''keep it extremely brief:''''' about eight words per argument; I may edit. Longer arguments should be added in text outside this summary list. Use " '''{{green|<nowiki><br> -</nowiki>}}''' " to separate lines within your box. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
* ''Though I consider the following to be "my" list, you are welcome to add or correct information to '''your own entry'''''—provided you '''''keep it extremely brief:''''' about eight words per argument; I may edit. Longer arguments should be added in text outside this summary list. Use " '''{{green|<nowiki><br> -</nowiki>}}''' " to separate lines within your box. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
* Thumbnail image is above. Link to image page: [[:File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png]] —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
* Thumbnail image is above. Link to image page: [[:File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png]] —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:48, 15 November 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
- 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)
"may have" included withholding military aid
Mandruss, your reversion of my change needs examination. The comment I changed seemed to be general in nature, IOW about all possible witnesses, and together they confirmed that it is a fact, not a "may have", that the pressure campaign "included withholding military aid". That the quote from one witness says "may have included..." is thus specific, and I did not change that quote. The sum total of witness testimony and other evidence confirms the fact that military aid was withheld. Even Trump confirmed that he withheld aid. It's a fact which should be plainly stated in the lead. Am I missing something here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Got any RS, or are you synthing? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- The article makes it plain that the aid was withheld, a fact not denied by the GOP, Trump, or Ukraine. This is a "sky is blue" type of fact, but the article does contain the information. If the aid was not withheld, we would not have this article: Trump–Ukraine scandal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Here's what we have on Trump:
- I don't engage in synthesis in articles, and I don't engage in speculation on talk pages that is not backed up by RS. I may not produce the sources on the spot, but I can when necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- The article makes it plain that the aid was withheld, a fact not denied by the GOP, Trump, or Ukraine. This is a "sky is blue" type of fact, but the article does contain the information. If the aid was not withheld, we would not have this article: Trump–Ukraine scandal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
- I look forward to your compelling, non-opinion RS that says linkage is a fact. Not just one or two, but to use wiki voice we need fairly widespread agreement, something approaching the degree of agreement about his proclivity for falsehoods. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss, okay, I'm back now. When I first read your last response, I was blown away. I had to take a break and think about it to try and make sense of it. My first impression was that you were denying that the military aid was withheld, but I knew that just could NOT be the case, because that is beyond doubt a fact. That would be like denying that the sky is blue. So what is going on here?
- Then it dawned on me that we have been "talking past each other". Rather than you denying the aid was withheld, maybe you mean the pressure campaign is a "maybe", and allegation, a Democratic opinion. In that case, we just need to move the qualifier to a different spot in the sentence. Let's see how that looks:
- Current version: "exposed a wider pressure campaign which may have included withholding military aid to Ukraine."
- Proposed version: "alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine."
- Am I totally off-base here, or does this address your real concern? (I believe the pressure campaign is backed up by enough RS and witnesses to also be stated as a fact, but let's not deal with that now.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would be ok with "Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine." That doesn't make it entirely clear that, yes, aid was in fact withheld for a period of time – that it's only the linkage that's unclear at this point – but it's about as accurate as we can expect within the limited space available in the lead.Or, we might say that the situation is too complicated to summarize this with sufficient clarity and accuracy within the limited space available in the lead, and so that sentence should be omitted entirely. I'm leaning in that direction, since (1) the lead suffers from chronic length problems and (2) I think we're too deep in the weeds for the lead of this top-level bio. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I look forward to your compelling, non-opinion RS that says linkage is a fact. Not just one or two, but to use wiki voice we need fairly widespread agreement, something approaching the degree of agreement about his proclivity for falsehoods. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
User:BullRangifer - That doesn’t seem a large part of the section, so per WP:LEAD should not be in lead. If it’s in there, then it should summarize the content wording of “alleged” and “pressure campaign may have included” cancelling Pence visit and withholding aid, with the words “alleged” and/or “may have”. The linking of aid as part of a pressure for personal benefit is what the untried case may be about, it currently is *NOT* a ‘fact’ for wikivoice nor “all possible” witnesses. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, now I've read your comment. I have a hard time making heads or tails of it, but I suspect my reply above your comment may address your point. We may be saying the same thing, even if I believe the pressure campaign is now so evident that we should treat it as a fact. All RS treat it that way now. Yet, even if it's a fact, we may still have to wait a while and just qualify it as an allegation for the time being. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:BullRangifer Closer, though I’m coming at it from looking at the content supposedly being summarized and not seeing enough to really deserve LEAD mention, plus that what’s there is the “alleged” and “may have” language. (Just whistleblower and William Taylor there, no mention of other witnesses and opposing testimonies.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
FYI I have enacted the version agreed by BullRangifer and Mandruss: "Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine." — JFG talk 07:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Improvements to current version
Before noticing this thread, I edited this version for two reasons. First, it was poorly-written English, with needless passive voice and barbarisms like "witness testimony". While we do have nouns that act as adjectives in common idioms, e.g. "dog food" "fist fight", there are better ways to refer to what a witness testifies, which sounds more like an "artist painting" "chef cuisine". Second, the version I modified omitted the key point of the whistleblower report, namely, that Trump was soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 US election. From an NPOV standpoint, the Bidens are more or less roadkill incidental to the impeachment inquiry. So the older version, which has now been reinstated, needs to be improved. Here is a shorter alternative, which I am inclined to insert unless there are objections or improvements. Comments welcome.
The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower stated that Trump had withheld congressionally-mandated military assistance from Ukraine and had pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 United States elections by asking him to investigate Democrat Joe Biden. In depositions before the House Intelligence Committee, witnesses subsequently testified to broader improprieties.
SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I object to that sentence.
The whistleblower did not mention interfering in the 2020 election, so it is incorrect to attribute that to him/her. The whistleblower said Trump asked for investigations into Biden. It is later interpretation to say the purpose was to interfere in the election.See if you can come up with a followup sentence that mentions the 2020 election effect (sourced, of course). I'll see if I can do something along those lines. My thought would be go directly to impeachment inquiry without mentioning the whistleblower. This has gone way beyond him/her. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)- I echo MelanieN's thoughts on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I like skipping the whistleblower. That makes it much better and greatly shortens it. I took the interference bit from our article on the Trump-Ukraine Scandal here [4]. I didn't check it and I've lost track of the timeline of each disclosure - initial report vs. subsequent testimony. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey, MelanieN, and MrX: Let's please resolve the point about election interference. Here is the quote from the opening statement of the whistleblower report
- "In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."
- Is there some reason not to use this succinct statement of the underlying allegation that led to the investigations? SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I object to that sentence.
- (edit conflict) For comparison, here is the current barbaric version:
The House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry following a whistleblower complaint alleging abuse of power when Trump pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate activities of former U.S. vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine. Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine.
- I favor the barbaric version as being slightly clearer. Mentioning the witholding of miltary aid before the pressuring seems unnatural. I'm also not found of the phrase "broader improprieties". That said, I can live with either version if other editors are inclined one way or the other. - MrX 🖋 16:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Could you propose a better-written edit of that version? -- that would eliminate the simplest-to-fix problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would be happy to oblige:
The House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry following a whistleblower complaint alleging abuse of power by Trump and a White House cover-up. The complaint focused on a July 2019 telephone call in which Trump pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden. Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees exposed a wider pressure campaign which may have included withholding military aid to Ukraine.
- - MrX 🖋 17:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Could you propose a better-written edit of that version? -- that would eliminate the simplest-to-fix problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, so I am taking another try and here is what I think is short and lead-worthy, avoids teasing detail that's too complex for the lead, and summarizes where things stand today:
In September 2019, a whistleblower report alleged that Trump had abused his presidential power by withholding congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine and pressuring its government to interfere in the 2020 US election. Following this disclosure, The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry. In testimony before
the House IntelligenceHouse Committees, witnesses testified to a broader pattern of misconduct by Trump and his cohorts.
SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Seems okay, but I feel like we're jumping the gun a little bit with the last sentence, since the testimonies are still ongoing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not even a link to Trump–Ukraine scandal? That is the key matter that triggered the impeachment hearing. No link to the actual impeachment inquiry either? And the link to foreign interference in 2020 looks POV. And earlier there was editor agreement (including by SPECIFICO) to drop the whistleblower, but now s/he's back in the text? And what of the last sentence weaseling away a "pattern of misconduct by Trump and his cohorts"? State what the alleged misconduct is, or remain silent. This proposal needs further tweaking and broader approval. Meanwhile, I'll revert; sorry, no time to offer a better text today. Hopefully other editors will chime in. — JFG talk 14:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please review the discussion of this edit in this section and the following section of this talk page that followed your previous revert. Several editors participated and the issues you cite were hashed out. The edit you've reverted reflected consensus in that discussion. You can easily add any links you find helpful without a blind revert. It would have been helpful if you had joined @MelanieN, MrX, Scjessey: and me in the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going to restore the version that was agreed among myself and the 3 editors pinged above yesterday. JFG, if you have improvements such as adding a link or others that you're confident do not change the meaning, by all means when you have time, make them or propose more extensive changes without another wholesale revert. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Contrary to your assertion, I have not seen MelanieN agree to this version. Her comment at the top of this thread "objects" to a prior version of yours, and she has apparently not commented at all on your latest proposal. Scjessey expressed some reservations about your proposed last sentence "jumping the gun". And thanks for adding some of the links that I suggested, but you still re-inserted the "whistleblower" when most editors commenting in this thread agreed to remove him/her at this stage.
- Generally, the wording of this paragraph is contentious and actively debated; you should not force your preferred version upon readers without a more robust debate. I'll revert, and then we can open up various proposals to scrutiny in this thread or a new one. Or if you feel that consensus cannot be achieved by informal discussion, you can open an RfC. — JFG talk 08:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I see that my attempted pings of the consensus editors was redlinked, so I'm repeating and they can confirm or change their agreement with the improved replacement text, now reverted. Note that the version you seem to prefer also refers to the origin and the whistleblower. Yes, we initially agreed when @MelanieN: preferred to remove the whistleblower, but that was before I provided the red text that is the lead of the whistleblower report document that precipitated the impeachment proceedings. See her strikethrough above. Anyway, this is just to fix the pings to @Scjessey: and @MrX:. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would alter it very slightly:
This eliminates the redundant words "report" and "that" from the first sentence, and the change of language in the second indirectly implies the inquiry is ongoing. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, a whistleblower alleged Trump had abused his presidential power by withholding congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine and pressuring its government to interfere in the 2020 US election. The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry to investigate the claim, and witnesses have subsequently testified to a broader pattern of misconduct by Trump and his cohorts.
- I prefer a version that keeps "The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry..." at the beginning. That's the most significant fact for this material. I also prefer not to start a sentence with a date (although I'm guilty of dong it myself on occasion).- MrX 🖋 14:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, how about this?
It eliminates mention of the whistleblower, which satisfies the wishes of some editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry to investigate a September 2019 claim alleging Trump had abused his presidential power by withholding congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine and pressuring its government to interfere in the 2020 US election. Witnesses have subsequently testified to a broader pattern of misconduct by Trump and his cohorts.
- Either of MrX or Scjessey or the reverted version are OK with me. Scjessey, I think it would be better to say "report" instead of "claim" which we know is a loaded word. I'm not sure we gain much from omitting "whistleblower" now that we are using the words from the report "interfere...". @MelanieN: I think that if you could share your view on this, we can wrap this up and deal with other things. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey and SPECIFICO: - although we've moved past this, I would like to correct the record. I believe that the whistleblower was not sure whether the military aid was tied in to the pressure campaign - or a genuine policy decision. See page 8 As such,
a whistleblower alleged Trump had abused his presidential power by withholding congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine
is inaccurate. starship.paint (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)- @Starship.paint: Thanks for keeping an eye on this and for citing the primary source. My strong preference was initially for the wording that included the top-level concern stated by the whistleblower. That was the red-quoted text above alleging that Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election." That was the serious issue that precipitated the impeachment inquiry. Withholding military aid, although grave and unlawful, has been reported as a tactic in the campaign to coerce foreign interference. I would be happy to see the "interference" language instead of the "withholding aid" bit. My initial version of this was in this edit. I still like that better than the subsequent versions, but there was a very tortured discussion thread, made more difficult by serial reverts back to a much worse version, and so the current text was written by committee. I would certainly not object to you replacing the "miltiary aid" bit with the "interfere in the election" bit.@Scjessey:. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey and SPECIFICO: - although we've moved past this, I would like to correct the record. I believe that the whistleblower was not sure whether the military aid was tied in to the pressure campaign - or a genuine policy decision. See page 8 As such,
- Either of MrX or Scjessey or the reverted version are OK with me. Scjessey, I think it would be better to say "report" instead of "claim" which we know is a loaded word. I'm not sure we gain much from omitting "whistleblower" now that we are using the words from the report "interfere...". @MelanieN: I think that if you could share your view on this, we can wrap this up and deal with other things. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, how about this?
- I prefer a version that keeps "The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry..." at the beginning. That's the most significant fact for this material. I also prefer not to start a sentence with a date (although I'm guilty of dong it myself on occasion).- MrX 🖋 14:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would alter it very slightly:
- I see that my attempted pings of the consensus editors was redlinked, so I'm repeating and they can confirm or change their agreement with the improved replacement text, now reverted. Note that the version you seem to prefer also refers to the origin and the whistleblower. Yes, we initially agreed when @MelanieN: preferred to remove the whistleblower, but that was before I provided the red text that is the lead of the whistleblower report document that precipitated the impeachment proceedings. See her strikethrough above. Anyway, this is just to fix the pings to @Scjessey: and @MrX:. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to miss the last few days, I’ve been busy IRL. Offhand comments: in the lead I don’t think we should focus on (or possibly even mention) the whistleblower. I think we need to mention the phone call, the impeachment inquiry, and subsequent testimony showing that the issue is broader than just the phone call. Just for context, this is what is currently in the lead: In September 2019, the House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry following allegations of abuse of power when Trump pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate activities of former U.S. vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine. Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine.
That’s actually not bad but it could be better. I might go for a slight rewording of it, or a slight modification of Scjessey’s latest proposal. Something like this: The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry following a September 2019
-- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
claim report that Trump had abused his presidential power by pressuring the president of Ukraine to undertake actions which would have the effect of helping Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. One form of pressure was withholding congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine. Witnesses subsequently testified that Trump and his surrogates had been carrying out that pressure campaign for months.
- MelanieN: Thanks for the quick reply. I think we are basically on the same page here and I suggest you place your text in the article so we can at least work on any further improvements from what we've accomplished over the past week or so. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't really like the next-to-last sentence. I'll see if I can tweak it a little. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- How about if I replace the next-to-last sentence with
Among other inducements, Trump ordered congressionally-mandated military aid for Ukraine to be withheld.
Still good? I checked to make sure that our article text does say that Trump was the one who ordered the withhold. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)- I agree, that's better. Since this is as close to a consensus as we have been on this material, I have edited it into the article.- MrX 🖋 23:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer the word “delayed,” as it was eventually released. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- How about if I replace the next-to-last sentence with
- I don't really like the next-to-last sentence. I'll see if I can tweak it a little. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is the version that we have arrived at based on this discussion:
The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry following a September 2019 report that Trump had abused his presidential power by pressuring the president of Ukraine to undertake actions which would have the effect of helping Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. Among other inducements, Trump ordered congressionally-mandated military aid for Ukraine to be withheld. Witnesses subsequently testified that Trump and his surrogates had been carrying out that pressure campaign for months.
- MrX 🖋 23:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks @all for the discussion and suggestions. This latest version bothers me in that it only ascribes electoral motives to Trump without mentioning the underlying Biden affair, or general corruption in Ukraine. "Among other inducements" is vague and unnecessary. And we must obviously add a link to the main article Trump–Ukraine scandal. Let me suggest a change:
The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry following a September 2019 report that Trump had pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate his electoral opponent Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Earlier, Trump had temporarily withheld congressionally-mandated military aid for Ukraine. Several witnesses testified that Trump and his surrogates had been carrying out that pressure campaign for months.
- Comments? — JFG talk 08:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The investigations and the impeachment inquiry have nothing to do with the Bidens, the Clinton server, Ukrainian corruption, the Deep State, etc. The lead-level fact is that the president was reported to have abused his official authority. It might be helpful for you to review many discussions and rejected edits on the Trump-Ukraine scandal article and the Hunter Biden and Burisma articles where attempts to insinuate the Trump/Giuliani/Barr narratives into those articles have consistently been rejected. At the lead level, of all the detail we might add, debunked insinuations of the Bidens should not be not on the list. However the link to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections (which is the top-level concern cited by the whistleblower) would improve the current lead text. This was discussed at some length but is not in the current version. For the avoidance of doubt, do you believe that RS reporting tells us that the impeachment hearings are about actual investigations and wrongdoing and corruption in Ukraine? If so, we can discuss sourcing and content rather than WEIGHT and lead-summary narration. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG: Forgot to clarify by pinging, I am asking JFG whether he has RS he believes support the narratives about Ukraine corruption, Biden narratives as credible and noteworthy, and if so which sources. Disagreements about which sources seem to underlie most of the content disagreements on this article. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would very strongly oppose the idea of bringing the Biden family into this. Exactly who Trump was trying to attack by abusing his power is not relevant, and by including the Biden family we would essentially be assisting Trump with his totally unfounded smear campaign. Absolutely not. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- This would have been a pretty good version about four weeks ago, but so much has been revealed since then that the Biden aspect is simply a distraction. It would certainly be something that we could cover in the body of the article, but it does not serve as a proper summary of the affair. Your version also omits the central accusation that Trump abused the power of his office, and the widely reported allegation that Trump's actions appear to have been politically motivated to affect the election. - MrX 🖋 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- "...the underlying Biden affair, or general corruption in Ukraine"??? Both are just excuses. There is no real "underlying Biden affair", and Trump has no real concern about corruption anywhere. We all know where he is usually located whenever there is any corruption. (Some might consider that his middle name.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG and MrX: -
September 2019 report
? The whistleblower complaint was submitted in August 2019 (although it was publicized in September, is that you two were going for?) JFG - I feel thatEarlier, Trump had temporarily withheld congressionally-mandated military aid for Ukraine
- seems misleading in the sense that Trump did not order a temporary withholding, he simply ordered withholding, and only released the aid in September after the withholding became public knowledge in late August. [6]Two weeks later, amid withering pressure from inside and outside his administration, Trump relented.
starship.paint (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Impeachment section in the article text: maybe a major trim?
We currently have three highly detailed paragraphs (“In September 2019…”, “The impeachment inquiry…” , and “During October…”) about the origins of the impeachment inquiry. I believe that is way too much for detail for this biography. I propose condensing them into a single paragraph, and I will do that if people think it’s OK. (I don’t want to go to all that work if people prefer the three current, highly detailed paragraphs.) What do you think, should I give it a shot? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: I assume you're referring to the body of the article. The length of the material about impeachment in the body seems about right, but not every detail is equally significant. I'm in favor a rewrite, but not a trim per se. I'll expand on that in a moment... - MrX 🖋 17:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Here is an outline of the points I think we should cover in the body:
- 1. Pre-inquiry hist (keep material as is)
- 2. September 24-ish events
- a. Revelation of whistleblower complaint
- b. Brief summary of whistleblower complaint
- c. Pelosi's announcement of an impeachment inquiry
- 3. Subsequent events
- a. Depositions (briefly, what was revealed in closed door testimony)
- b. Admission of quid pro quo by Giuliani, Mulvaney and others
- c. House floor vote on procedures}}
- I think we could cut the specific mention of Taylor, some repetitive material, and everything in the fifth paragraph except for the last sentence. Then we could reword the material to make it considerably tighter.- MrX 🖋 17:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's likely to be a very inefficient use of editor resources to try to keep up with news and nonsense relating to impeachment-related reporting. And due weight is just about impossible and WP:NOTNEWS. I think what's most important is to refer to events that are being pretty well updated in other articles that can be linked and above all not to validate various self-serving narratives and twists of language, e.g. unduly referring to a Ukranian "investigation" when RS tell us that Trump/Giuliani/Barr are engaged in soliciting and propagating false narratives, not investigations. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, SPECIFICO. We have disagreed on this before. It is true that "investigation" is a euphemism for "get me dirt". But "investigation" is the wording used by the president, by the witnesses, and by the vast majority of Reliable Sources. Unless and until a significant number of neutral reliable sources begin saying "Trump asked Zelensky to propagate false narratives", we cannot say that here. Or not in Wikipedia's voice; not without attributing it to the speaker. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Which witnesses? As to "investigate" -- That doesn't fit the bill for a euphemism, which is a word that is intended to fully convey the meaning, but avoids certain words. Trump/Giuliani/Barr are using the word "investigate" in a way that is patently false. What they are requesting or requiring or directing has none of the elements of an investigation and is instead a scripted enactment of something that is falsely called an investigation. The American media was initially gun-shy about these propaganda tactics earlier in the Trump presidency. But that has changed. Moreover, in tertiary sources, which we should be using -- and not deprecating as "opinion" -- there is very clear language that invalidates "investigation" in this context. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, SPECIFICO, you have been arguing against the word "investigations" for some weeks now, but I have not seen anyone agree with you that instead of using the words Trump or other participants actually used, we should use your description of what those requests amounted to. In particular there is no consensus here to do that when attributing words to certain individuals - something I have cautioned you about repeatedly. As for "which witnesses?", if you have seen any witness quoted as saying anything like "Trump asked Zelensky to promote false narratives"
or "Trump asked Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 election",please provide a citation. Not a citation for the opinion of the writer, mind you; a citation for what the witness said. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)- MelanieN, in response to your previous request, I yesterday provided you not only a link to secondary RS but also, later, a red-text quote from the whistleblower report that has been cited in WaPo and other top sources. This is the "interfere in 2020" bit. Have you seen that? And MrX's reply that this would be OK for the lead text, I'd appreciate hearing any rationale from you to the contrary. It's sounding to me as if you feel I am being disruptive here, so I'd rather hear your reply to my having given you the citation to the whistleblower report that you requested and that I'd initially presumed you had read. I pinged you . Thanks.
- With respect to the false narratives, investigations, etc. First, I'm not arguing, I'm trying to articulate an general point about the language we use in article text. I have not falsely attributed words to individuals, I don't know what prompts you to say that, and I'm certainly not forcing bad language into article text if my bold edit is not supported. On the other hand, you may have noticed that my concern about the Mueller Report language in the lead (concerning the context-free use of the word "establish") did finally result, after an extended poll, with my approach having been adopted. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I missed your link to the whistleblower report; sorry, and I have struck my mistaken impression that he/she did not say that. So we can certainly include it in the article text as part of what the whistleblower said; I still don't think it belongs in the lead. In fact I see that several people have agreed with the notion of de-emphasizing the whistleblower since this issue has now gone way beyond that point. If I do come up with a "major trim" version to propose (and I will certainly propose it here before implementing it), I will mention the whistleblower but focus on the subsequently established facts. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, SPECIFICO, you have been arguing against the word "investigations" for some weeks now, but I have not seen anyone agree with you that instead of using the words Trump or other participants actually used, we should use your description of what those requests amounted to. In particular there is no consensus here to do that when attributing words to certain individuals - something I have cautioned you about repeatedly. As for "which witnesses?", if you have seen any witness quoted as saying anything like "Trump asked Zelensky to promote false narratives"
- Which witnesses? As to "investigate" -- That doesn't fit the bill for a euphemism, which is a word that is intended to fully convey the meaning, but avoids certain words. Trump/Giuliani/Barr are using the word "investigate" in a way that is patently false. What they are requesting or requiring or directing has none of the elements of an investigation and is instead a scripted enactment of something that is falsely called an investigation. The American media was initially gun-shy about these propaganda tactics earlier in the Trump presidency. But that has changed. Moreover, in tertiary sources, which we should be using -- and not deprecating as "opinion" -- there is very clear language that invalidates "investigation" in this context. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I totally agree with your point that there are main articles on this subject which are linked from this article, and that the blow-by-blow details should be in those articles, not in this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, SPECIFICO. We have disagreed on this before. It is true that "investigation" is a euphemism for "get me dirt". But "investigation" is the wording used by the president, by the witnesses, and by the vast majority of Reliable Sources. Unless and until a significant number of neutral reliable sources begin saying "Trump asked Zelensky to propagate false narratives", we cannot say that here. Or not in Wikipedia's voice; not without attributing it to the speaker. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, MrX, I am referring to the three paragraphs in the "impeachment" section of the article text. But I am not talking about a minor trim. For the purposes of this biography, I do not think that the amount of current coverage is "about right"; I think it is far too detailed, virtually a play-by-play coverage of the last few weeks. I am proposing a drastic (maybe 50%) reduction of that material by doing a lot of summarizing. My proposal would be something like this:
- 1. The paragraph on pre-inquiry history: Keep it as it is.
- 2. The three paragraphs describing the whistleblower complaint, the slow unveiling of the specific allegations, the various depositions, etc.: Reduce to a single paragraph along the lines of: the Ukraine phone call came to light. What Trump said in the call - that he repeatedly asked Zelensky to open a investigation into the Bidens, told him to work with Giuliani and Barr on it, and hinted that military aid was contingent on those investigations happening. The fact that the transcript and multiple witnesses (not naming all of them) confirmed that military aid to Ukraine was being withheld contingent on Zelensky opening the investigations. The point (need a good neutral reference) that asking for dirt on Biden amounted to asking for foreign help in the 2020 election. I think I can do all this in one paragraph.
- 3. The existing paragraph abut the House actions (your fifth paragraph): keep it as is.
- Let's see, through discussion, which approach people favor: your slight rewrite or my major trim. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's possible that we could get all of the most relevant facts into one paragraph. I was not suggesting a slight rewrite— more of a do over, but without regard to size.- MrX 🖋 18:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for clarifying. What do folks think about this idea? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, MrX, I am referring to the three paragraphs in the "impeachment" section of the article text. But I am not talking about a minor trim. For the purposes of this biography, I do not think that the amount of current coverage is "about right"; I think it is far too detailed, virtually a play-by-play coverage of the last few weeks. I am proposing a drastic (maybe 50%) reduction of that material by doing a lot of summarizing. My proposal would be something like this:
We should definitely have what the White House confirmed: The Trump White House has corroborated several allegations raised by the whistleblower. A non-verbatim transcript of the Trump–Zelensky call confirmed that Trump requested investigations into Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, as well as a conspiracy theory involving a Democratic National Committee server, while repeatedly urging Zelensky to work with Giuliani and Barr on these matters. The White House also confirmed that a record of the call had been stored in a highly restricted system. White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney stated that one reason why Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine was Ukrainian "corruption related to the DNC server".
This isn't the whole proposed text, just a portion. starship.paint (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I totally agree that the revelations and confirmations from the White House, and from Mulvaney, are important to include in the article text, and this is a good summary. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Does it not need to be mentioned that there was no subsequent investigation into Biden and the aid was released before the deadline? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Would that be "the aid was released before the deadline" or "the aid was released after the withholding of it was publicly reported and received bipartisan condemnation"? That publicity was also why Zelensky never undertook the investigation; reporting is that he had actually agreed to read the mandated statement announcing an investigation, on CNN as required, but after the scheme went public he was able to back out.[7] Or as the NYT headlined it, Zelensky Bowed to Trump's Demands, Until Luck Spared Him ... IMO this would be too much detail for this article, even for the text section, but I'm open for discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if we go into detail about accusations, we should also get into detail about events that contradict the accusations. My view is that both points are too detailed to belabor in the lead. — JFG talk 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Amend consensus #2
Per MOS:OVERLINK, "New York City" should not be linked. If a reader wants to read about New York City during their visit to the biography of Donald Trump, there is a link at words 6–8 of the lead of Queens. Need consensus to amend #Current consensus item 2 to de-link it there. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding the OVERLINK guideline, it is customary to link to people's places of birth, death and residence in their infoboxes. See {{Infobox person}} documentation of the
|birth_place=
parameter, that only advises not linking countries. — JFG talk 14:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)- Re your first sentence, this would not depart from that custom, as we would still link to his place of birth, Queens. A second link to NYC is redundant, especially when an easy second click gets you to the same place.Re your second, obviously there is not enough room in the template guidance to duplicate MOS:OVERLINK, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. "Countries should generally not be linked" does not imply "but everything else should be". It links to OVERLINK, precisely so you can easily read the full guidance there. I see no rationale for giving that field special treatment with regard to OVERLINK, and you haven't offered one. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fine, we disagree on interpretation of policy and guidelines. In other words, just another Tuesday on Wikipedia... Regarding the link to birth place, I don't think that Queens would be sufficient for an international readership, and I'm not sure whether you suggest specifying the borough in the infobox, in addition or in lieu of New York City. Let's see what other editors have to say. — JFG talk 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to see what other editors have to say, if they had anything to say about this. So far, the interest level is zero, and zero interest always means maintain status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you suggest specifying the borough in the infobox, in addition or in lieu of New York City.
The borough is already in the infobox – the infobox says "Queens, New York City" per #2 – and I propose nothing except de-linking New York City. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)- Hmmmm. My first inclination would be to agree that linking New York City would be redundant, and I would still support that position if pressed; however, unbeknownst to me until just now is that fact that there is another Queens in the United States. Who knew? Moreover, while "New York City" appears several times in the body of the article, I find it is not linked to its article anywhere. So I suppose a person could make a flimsy argument that linking NYC this one time wouldn't do any harm. So I'm easy either way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- LOL. I guess that's better than no comment. Your
flimsy argument
is incompatible with the OVERLINK concept, which is not about too many links of the same thing but about whether the thing should be linked at all in most articles. MOS:DUPLINK suggests one link in each article, but that's clearly only for items that pass OVERLINK. We link "American" and "United States" zero times – also per OVERLINK.So it's not a matter of how we interpret the PAGs – the PAGs are clear enough on this question – but about how much we care about applying them consistently. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- LOL. I guess that's better than no comment. Your
- Hmmmm. My first inclination would be to agree that linking New York City would be redundant, and I would still support that position if pressed; however, unbeknownst to me until just now is that fact that there is another Queens in the United States. Who knew? Moreover, while "New York City" appears several times in the body of the article, I find it is not linked to its article anywhere. So I suppose a person could make a flimsy argument that linking NYC this one time wouldn't do any harm. So I'm easy either way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fine, we disagree on interpretation of policy and guidelines. In other words, just another Tuesday on Wikipedia... Regarding the link to birth place, I don't think that Queens would be sufficient for an international readership, and I'm not sure whether you suggest specifying the borough in the infobox, in addition or in lieu of New York City. Let's see what other editors have to say. — JFG talk 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Re your first sentence, this would not depart from that custom, as we would still link to his place of birth, Queens. A second link to NYC is redundant, especially when an easy second click gets you to the same place.Re your second, obviously there is not enough room in the template guidance to duplicate MOS:OVERLINK, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. "Countries should generally not be linked" does not imply "but everything else should be". It links to OVERLINK, precisely so you can easily read the full guidance there. I see no rationale for giving that field special treatment with regard to OVERLINK, and you haven't offered one. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: You haven't commented since I cleared up your confusion about what was being proposed.[8] Does that change your position at all? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Veracity graphs
- Strong support - I am strongly in favor of retaining the false or misleading claims graphs added by RCraig09. This is an excellent format for conveying information in an online encyclopedia. If anyone feels it clutters the article, I suggest removing any of the building photos (this is not an article about buildings) or we could remove any of the generic images of Trump speaking.- MrX 🖋 19:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Graphs are detail data and would appear to be inconsistent with the "summary-level" part of #Current consensus #37. The graphs are already in the Veracity article for readers interested in that level of detail, easily accessible via the
{{Main}}
hatnote. My objection has little to do with clutter (although file size remains a nagging problem) and I am not opposed to removing any images that serve more to decorate than inform. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)- The graph is a summary of the underlying falsehoods. Your objection would be valid if we listed the actual lies in the graphic. This is possibly the most compact way of conveying the magnitude and significance of of Trump's lying, without being excessively verbose.- MrX 🖋 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- The magnitude and significance are already adequately conveyed in the prose – including the midterm-election spike – including specific counts and averages. The graphs add nothing except finer granularity, which is excessive detail for this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- That doesn't take into consideration people who seek visual information. The same argument you're making could be made about any other image in the article, the infobox, or the electoral map which is only tangentially related to the subject but at least as detailed as these lie graphs. why are you being selective in applying Rule 37?- MrX 🖋 20:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I fully support broad application of #37, but I don't run the place. My time and energy being limited, I am more inclined to oppose addition of new violations than to propose elimination of long-existing violations. The existence of bad stuff is never an excuse for more bad stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't take into consideration people who seek visual information.
Said visual information is available in the Veracity article – as it stands today, in the lead of the Veracity article. I pray my mind will never become capable of holding the contradiction that we should spend tons of time developing Trump sub-articles while making decisions based on the assumption that they won't be read, that{{Main}}
hatnote links won't be clicked. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- That doesn't take into consideration people who seek visual information. The same argument you're making could be made about any other image in the article, the infobox, or the electoral map which is only tangentially related to the subject but at least as detailed as these lie graphs. why are you being selective in applying Rule 37?- MrX 🖋 20:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- The magnitude and significance are already adequately conveyed in the prose – including the midterm-election spike – including specific counts and averages. The graphs add nothing except finer granularity, which is excessive detail for this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- The graph is a summary of the underlying falsehoods. Your objection would be valid if we listed the actual lies in the graphic. This is possibly the most compact way of conveying the magnitude and significance of of Trump's lying, without being excessively verbose.- MrX 🖋 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. In any case, disputed content should be omitted pending consensus to include it, so I think you should self-revert, MrX. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Fine detail of this nature should be omitted in favor shunting it to the supporting articles, per WP:SS. These wee little thumbnails do not do the data justice anyway. And Mandruss is absolutely correct in that the default position should be for the exclusion of challenged material. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "fine detail"? - MrX 🖋 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Trump tells porky pies" is a good summary. Actual numbers displayed in graph form is "fine detail". Also, I don't really think it adds anything useful to the accompanying text. They are absolutely useful in the context of the main veracity article though. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think using Cockney slang in an article about the U.S. President is a good idea. I wonder why you are not opposed to other similarly-summarized information in the article, like the electoral map. Why this, but not that?- MrX 🖋 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously I'm not suggesting Cockney Rhyming Slang is used in the article. My point is that the graph represents more detail than is necessary for a summary. And I did not weigh in on "other similarly-summarized information" in my response because I haven't considered them. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think using Cockney slang in an article about the U.S. President is a good idea. I wonder why you are not opposed to other similarly-summarized information in the article, like the electoral map. Why this, but not that?- MrX 🖋 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: From File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png I've removed the "actual numbers displayed in graph form". (You may have to refresh your browser or clear your cache to see the most recent version.) This is an elementary and simple graph that adds visual indication of the intensifying trend of falsehoods that isn't conveyed by text. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- It makes absolutely no difference to my view that the graphs should be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's a conclusion; not reasoning. And "adding visual appeal" (below) is less important in an encyclopedia than the substance of the intensifying trend of falsehoods. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't actually see why we need to visually show this "intensifying trend" in the first place. The prose adequately explains the situation, and readers can go to the dedicated veracity article for specifics. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: The key word you use is "show"—as in the meaning of "convey". Per another editor: "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a graphic visually shows in an instant what text takes much longer to convey. Another editor also notes that many/most WP readers won't read longer texts but are drawn to images (you mention "visual appeal"). Again: this image—which is not "tiny"—conveys in an instant the falsehood intensification as a summary; clicking on the image lets readers investigate details. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @RCraig09: The graphs are trying to convey details about Trump's mendacity that are over and above what one would normally consider part of a summary. They are, however, ideal for the article that is specifically about Trump's mendacity. To answer your response about the size of the graphs, they are tiny. I would rather have the user click on the LINK TO THE ARTICLE for more information, than click on the link to the larger versions of the graphs. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: "Tiny" (thumbnail) chart: easy for even lazy readers to instantly see extent and trend. Clicked-on graph: shows details. Yes, charts are also ideal for the Veracity sub-article, but ideal here because a picture instantly conveys as much as the proverbial "1000 words". Also, it's easier for the public to click-on-a-pic than go to another whole article to read. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- You're making circular arguments and entirely missing the point. WE DON'T NEED TO SEE THE EXTENT AND TREND to understand Trump is a liar at an unprecedented level, because we ALREADY USE THE WORD "UNPRECEDENTED". Please read and inwardly digest WP:SS. If you read it and still don't understand my objection for including the graphs, there will be no point in further discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: "Tiny" (thumbnail) chart: easy for even lazy readers to instantly see extent and trend. Clicked-on graph: shows details. Yes, charts are also ideal for the Veracity sub-article, but ideal here because a picture instantly conveys as much as the proverbial "1000 words". Also, it's easier for the public to click-on-a-pic than go to another whole article to read. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @RCraig09: The graphs are trying to convey details about Trump's mendacity that are over and above what one would normally consider part of a summary. They are, however, ideal for the article that is specifically about Trump's mendacity. To answer your response about the size of the graphs, they are tiny. I would rather have the user click on the LINK TO THE ARTICLE for more information, than click on the link to the larger versions of the graphs. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: The key word you use is "show"—as in the meaning of "convey". Per another editor: "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a graphic visually shows in an instant what text takes much longer to convey. Another editor also notes that many/most WP readers won't read longer texts but are drawn to images (you mention "visual appeal"). Again: this image—which is not "tiny"—conveys in an instant the falsehood intensification as a summary; clicking on the image lets readers investigate details. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't actually see why we need to visually show this "intensifying trend" in the first place. The prose adequately explains the situation, and readers can go to the dedicated veracity article for specifics. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's a conclusion; not reasoning. And "adding visual appeal" (below) is less important in an encyclopedia than the substance of the intensifying trend of falsehoods. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- It makes absolutely no difference to my view that the graphs should be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Trump tells porky pies" is a good summary. Actual numbers displayed in graph form is "fine detail". Also, I don't really think it adds anything useful to the accompanying text. They are absolutely useful in the context of the main veracity article though. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "fine detail"? - MrX 🖋 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support. The charts immediately convey a significant veracity trend—and without being "too detailed". Though details went into making the graph, readers are not slave to details since the trend is immediately apparent. Regarding Consensus Item 37: the historic levels and conspicuous escalation pattern of false claims are definitely "likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy", and probably on the presidency itself. Disclosure: I am the one who created and uploaded the chart. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but they are not summary level no matter how you cut it. If you're going to cite #37, please consider all of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- They are summary level. Non-summary level would be a listing of all 13k+ lies. Also, knowing how the lies are distributed over time is extremely useful information.- MrX 🖋 20:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Which part of Consensus #37 do you think I did not consider? The chart is an excellent summary of Trump's historic >13,000 falsehoods; a list of falsehoods themselves would violate #37. I
can removehave removed the numbers in the top graph, if that's what you're concerned about. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC) updated RCraig09 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)- I agree the chart is summary material full of factual content. I also note that this article has at least half a dozen photos of nothing in particular, or visually poor photos that should be removed. We can't be thinking that e.g. the picture of the Turkey ribbon-cutting or a golf clubhouse is better encyclopedic content than an info-graphic. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- You do, unfortunately, need some random images to give the article some visual appeal, but tiny little graphs are not it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing unfortunate about great images. Bad ones in Saudi, Chicago tower, or generic Hollywood Star not so much. There must be a better less cluttered inaugural photo, btw. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Images are not decorations (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). It sounds like the size of the graph is your main concern. DYK you can click on it to make it bigger?- MrX 🖋 21:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- You do, unfortunately, need some random images to give the article some visual appeal, but tiny little graphs are not it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- @RCraig09 - One could always argue that something is "summary level" provided it doesn't include every detail that is available and belongs anywhere in the encyclopedia. I'm the one who proposed #37, but it's proving to be too vague to be useful and I now regret doing so. This is shaking out as one question – How much detail is too much detail for this top-level biography? – and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.But the issue is larger than the immediate one about these graphs. Trump is not a career politician and this article should not be guided by what our articles on career-politician presidents have done. His presidency may be the most prominent part of his life – and there is a strong unencyclopedic desire to use this article for maximum visibility of recentist content about his presidency – but it is far from all of his life and this article devotes far too much space to it in my strong opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- As opposed to all the things that could be removed from a biography, incidental achievements, secondary presidential actions, etc. this is content about his core personal style. It would be better if the chart went back to his early public days -- e.g. starting with the demolition of the protected art works at the Trump Tower site, but he was not being so closely fact-checked then. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Seems a bit non sequiturish. Nobody disputes that it's
about his core personal style
; in dispute is whether it's too much detail about his core personal style for this top-level bio. I continue to view articles including Veracity as extensions of this article that are separate articles only for technical reasons related to article size. I could imagine software support for linking to them from this table of contents, but the support is to use{{Main}}
instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Seems a bit non sequiturish. Nobody disputes that it's
- It's not merely his "personal style". For decades to come, his presidency will be what WP readers will search for, and it's likely he'll be remembered most for openly validating the post-truth era from the world's most powerful office. Think Nixon. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- As opposed to all the things that could be removed from a biography, incidental achievements, secondary presidential actions, etc. this is content about his core personal style. It would be better if the chart went back to his early public days -- e.g. starting with the demolition of the protected art works at the Trump Tower site, but he was not being so closely fact-checked then. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree the chart is summary material full of factual content. I also note that this article has at least half a dozen photos of nothing in particular, or visually poor photos that should be removed. We can't be thinking that e.g. the picture of the Turkey ribbon-cutting or a golf clubhouse is better encyclopedic content than an info-graphic. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but they are not summary level no matter how you cut it. If you're going to cite #37, please consider all of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Re Table: @Mandruss: Only 3 of 5 commenters here have entered bolded text at the beginning of their posts. It's not clear. The Table helps with gauging consensus, and strength of opinion, and doesn't violate WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Please replace it. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Surely you're aware that the word "strong" (and the word "weak") is often used in the bolded part of a !vote to indicate strength of opinion. I suggest you ping the editors who haven't made their positions clear and ask them to do so. Sorry, I'm not inclined to restore that departure from the method that has worked just fine at this article for years. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I can't believe that we would even consider nonsense like remote-diagnosis from psychiatrists or self-serving physicians' tall tales and then reject a factual diagram that quickly conveys well-documented behavioral information. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems more appropriate for the veracity article not here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why not both? 🌮- MrX 🖋 01:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nah, seems redundant.🌯 PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Tacos are never redundant with burritos. ¡Yo quiero! - MrX 🖋 12:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I can find no flaw in that logic! PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Tacos are never redundant with burritos. ¡Yo quiero! - MrX 🖋 12:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nah, seems redundant.🌯 PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why not both? 🌮- MrX 🖋 01:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: I see no reason to include them.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support Partly per SPECIFICO, also, these are clear, easy to understand graphical representations of things that have been extensively covered by RS. No reason not to include them. Mgasparin (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Regardless of the consensus that emerges, I will note that this is almost certainly, by definition, summary level. Regardless of the content, it’s exactly the sort of graphic most articles ‘dream’ of. It can be created here due to the close press scrutiny of Trump, obviously. Visual aides are encouraged, and something like this is not only encyclopedic, it’s informative and easily verified.
- Secondly, I also likewise agree that a few (or likely several) of the images already in the article could be removed. A few a certainly fit into the photographic equivalent of WP:CRUFT, and there are clearly more relevant and encyclopedic images out there that we could replace them with. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus: Just a note to suggest you add a bolded Support or Oppose etc. label to the beginning of your post, to make it easier to gauge consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support. A picture is worth a thousand words, so this serves a very good purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support. We can't get into fine detail, but a graph is a summary, almost by definition. The lies and deceptions distinguish this presidency from any other - not in that they occur, because there was never yet a completely honest politician - but because of the scale and magnificence, easily grasped by looking at the visual representation of data. We are here to inform, not to fight political battles. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I was about to !vote weak support as the article is long. But, Trump’s flexibility with facts is a defining part of his lifelong career. As for clutter, this is certainly more valuable than having 23 images of the subject. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: FTR, no Oppose argument has cited clutter. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose charts - it’s details, and gives UNDUE emphasis to a POV talking point. There hasn’t been an enduring impact to Trump’s life from a chart anyway, nor has a chart been a big feature of his life, so it doesn’t belong in BLP. It’s mentioned to be at Veracity article — no need to xerox it here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:RCraig09 - I'm saying three things - First, UNDUE emphasis to the POV talking point, when there's just minimal coverage of a counting and in particular not of these week-by-week variations. Second - not for this BLP article, as it's had no enduring impact to him. (The Washington Post in particular seems irritated by that, and the Star ... well they skipped several weeks and then quit doing this at all back inn June.) Nor is it a personal decision or event that directed his life. Just not something for BLP. Third - if it's already covered in the details article, there's no need to also have it here. It's supposed to go the other way around. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers @Markbassett. Fact-checking is not a wp:pov violation, and the highly notable nature of Trump's veracity issue ensures it doesn't violate wp:undue. Second, it's not about how a chart affects Trump (!); it's about whether it succinctly present facts about Trump. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:RCraig09 Nope, ‘highly notable’ is disproven by this doesn’t have WEIGHT. A “highly notable” item is shown by facts in WEIGHT of actually *being* highly noted. It would get a pass on that for his BLP if it actually was significant in his life. But there is no BLP significance. There simply is not frequent mentions of numeric totals nor any impact resulting from them - and this OR of the week by week variation comparison is pretty much just an odd display of no meaning or impact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello again, User:Markbassett! Lack of veracity is an integral part of Trump's life: a Google search for "Trump lies" yields 693,000,000 results (2019-11-12) and the oft-cited WashPost fact-checking specifically states that Trump made 13,435 false or misleading claims since inauguration. Are you saying that Trump's ignoring the fact-checkers implies that fact-checking results are not a notable element of his life? That's backwards. . . . And definitely: newspaper fact-checking isn't my WP:OR. . . . P.S. WashPost and TorontoStar show monthly and weekly totals, respectively, and are consistent; also, TorontoStar stopped in June 2019 because the fact-checker resigned and not because of "lack of interest"! —RCraig09 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:RCraig09 The article already covers that. Now as to my inputs for *this* proposal being added... Read the already-stated points in DISCUSSION section. The material in the proposed content is UNDUE, relevant hits down in the thousands not hundreds of millions. Try googling for the content proposed instead of vague topical area, looking at coverage of the Toronto Star defunct count, and for complex detailing of ‘this weeks count’ format which is the proposed display. If the proposal is to show Trump ignores fact-checkers (a) that’s unclear from a varying ‘this weeks count’ bar versus there already exists a better presentation in article text (and a whole details article) for the topic, and (b) the proposal as given has not met the WP:ONUS to show WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Look, it’s loosely interesting that some WP editor crafted a mashup showing the two counters did not agree in details, but that just doesn’t have national press and has not had BLP effects on Trump to make it suitable for a BLP article. Not every possible presentation of everything possible belongs in the BLP article. And reiterating article content as a caption to a diagram that doesn’t show the captioned text... ? Does not relate to my inputs, put it down in general Discussion area. Markbassett (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Whoa. The "proposed content" (graph) shows the general topic (veracity), not merely weekly "complex detailing"; therefore the 693,000,000 Google hits figure is probative of wp:weight. . . . Googling —— "13,435" Trump (lies or false or misleading) —— (2019-11-12) shows 12,200 hits for this one WashPost finding alone. . . . Journalist fact-checking epitomizes WP:V! . . . The weekly chart is consistent with the monthly chart. . . Again, your reference that the charts have "not had BLP effects on Trump" has the analysis backward; content is supposed to describe Trump, and it does. . . . Good day, sir. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- And for me... The diagram shows a complex detail of dozens of bars varying in height, with Toronto Star counts different from Washington Post. The google of “13,435” being only 12,200 out of over 1,300,000,000 Trump items would show UNDUE - except that’s not actually *in* the diagram. The count of either paper just wasn’t widely present week to week, let alone a comparing counts of these two across time that this diagram involves. Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support. Good job to whoever created the chart. Wikipedia needs more graphs and figures to communicate info clearly and simply, not less. I suggest this chart also gets added to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, where its addition would allow us to trim some text which explains what goes on in the chart. Trump's lying is a defining feature of his character and of his presidency, so it clearly meets DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Undue, POV, and weight concerns as described by others above. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: How can two fact-checkers' study of Trump's extremely notable(ergo not violating wp:undue or wp:weight) veracity be a wp:pov violation? Your claim that fact-checking is POV, is the POV violation, true? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @RCraig09 - The problem I have with this chart (as well as anything along these lines) is that the term "false and misleading" is not particularly clear. By its very nature, the chart cannot explain that. Does it include deliberate falsehoods? Does it include mistakes? You could go on and on. Because this is a BLP, we should be concerned about those kinds of issues. Discussion about alleged falsehoods should occur solely in prose. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, @MHSFUY, the language "false and misleading" is clear: as one would expect of fact checkers, the charted data makes no judgment about Trump's deliberateness, as explained further in the sources. That explanation could be easily added to the image's caption here, if needed. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @RCraig09 - The problem I have with this chart (as well as anything along these lines) is that the term "false and misleading" is not particularly clear. By its very nature, the chart cannot explain that. Does it include deliberate falsehoods? Does it include mistakes? You could go on and on. Because this is a BLP, we should be concerned about those kinds of issues. Discussion about alleged falsehoods should occur solely in prose. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: How can two fact-checkers' study of Trump's extremely notable(ergo not violating wp:undue or wp:weight) veracity be a wp:pov violation? Your claim that fact-checking is POV, is the POV violation, true? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support Graphs are the very best way to portray information. You can't attend a conference without being exposed to a graph or chart. Oldperson (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Oldperson: I agree, but nobody is saying graphs aren't a good way to portray information. My objection is that in this summary style article, we don't actually need this information. We only need the summary that says Trump tells an unprecedented number of lies. Let Veracity of statements by Donald Trump be the place where we go into the specifics of the frequency and trend of his lies. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- By your interpretation of wp:ss, @Scjessey:, would this article have one single sentence describing Trump's false statements: "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading claims" ? Same question to User:Mandruss. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- My preference would be that we would keep the first paragraph of Donald Trump#False statements (although I'm not a fan of the way the third sentence is currently worded) and eliminate the second. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- By your interpretation of wp:ss, @Scjessey:, would this article have one single sentence describing Trump's false statements: "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading claims" ? Same question to User:Mandruss. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Oldperson: I agree, but nobody is saying graphs aren't a good way to portray information. My objection is that in this summary style article, we don't actually need this information. We only need the summary that says Trump tells an unprecedented number of lies. Let Veracity of statements by Donald Trump be the place where we go into the specifics of the frequency and trend of his lies. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion summary
- The following list condenses eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls of discussion, to help gauge consensus and reasoning.*::
- Though I consider the following to be "my" list, you are welcome to add or correct information to your own entry—provided you keep it extremely brief: about eight words per argument; I may edit. Longer arguments should be added in text outside this summary list. Use " <br> - " to separate lines within your box. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thumbnail image is above. Link to image page: File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png —RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Editor | Support or Strong Support | Oppose |
---|---|---|
MrX | -"excellent format for conveying info" -"possibly most compact way of conveying" -"consider people who seek visual information" (other images, electoral map) -Charts are about Trump's "core personality style" -"one of the most reported and enduring aspects of his life" -quantify and organize to "help our readers better understand" |
|
Mandruss | -"Graphs are detail data" -Graphs not "summary level" (Consensus#37) -Already covered in prose -Already too much presidency content in this article -Graphs readily accessible in lead of Veracity | |
Scjessey | -"Shunt" "fine detail" to Veracity article, per WP:SS -Thumbnails are "tiny" -"specifics and trendlines... are of secondary importance" -"text is far more accessible than the graphs" (blind people) | |
SPECIFICO | -"factual diagram... quickly conveys... summary information" -Users many googlers "come for quick overview... not likely to pursue links to detail articles" |
|
PackMecEng | -"seems more appropriate for the Veracity article not here" | |
Jack Upland | -"I see no reason to include them" | |
Mgasparin | -"clear, easy to understand"... "covered by RS" | |
Symmachus Auxiliarus | -(no explicit "Support" but content is supportive) -"almost certainly... summary level... exactly sort of graphic most articles dream of" |
|
BullRangifer | -"picture is worth a thousand words... serves very good purpose" "RS and fact-checkers": WP depends on RSs |
|
Pete | -"graph is summary, almost by definition" -"easily grasped by looking at the visual representation of data" -graphs "summarise information and present it in an easily-grasped form." -"defining characteristic of the man" |
|
O3000 | "...defining part of his lifelong career" | |
Markbassett | - UNDUE emphasis - relatively nothing in coverage of counts week-by-week ... one discontinued for lack of interest. - Not BLP material, this count or chart has shown no enduring impact to his life. - In details article, no need to elevate / duplicate. - UNCLEAR - juxtaposing complex bar charts of weekly counts that don’t agree has unclear meaning. (Seems clearer and shorter to just write a narrative sentence.) | |
Snooganssnoogans | -"graphs to communicate info clearly and simply" -"defining feature of (Trump's) character and of his presidency... clearly meets DUE" |
|
May His Shadow Fall Upon You | -"Undue, POV, ... weight concerns" per others above -In BLP: "discussion about falsehoods should occur solely in prose" -"term 'false and misleading' is not particularly clear" | |
Oldperson | "Graphs are the very best way to portray information." | |
___ | ||
RCraig09 (disclosure: is chart uploader) |
-Chart, esp thumbnail, is not unduly "detailed" -Text has long recited much "detail" -Agree that "Picture = 1000 words" -Charts show even lazy readers instantly -No, thumbnail isn't "tiny": can see extent, trend -Fact-checking is not "POV" or "negative trivia" -Chart language ("false or misleading claims") is clear |
Why is this table necessary? This entire discussion can best be described by the headline: "In a repetition of almost every discussion, WP:SS is being ignored while politically polarized editors face off." -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- First, as already noted, this List condenses eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls of discussion. More important, as the list itself proves, at least five Support editors have mentioned level of "detail" or "summary" or "compact(ness)", so your characterization that WP:SS is "ignored" is simply factually incorrect; and only two editors (both Oppose editors) initiated political issues such as POV. WP:SS states, for example: "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)"; here, clearly, an image with two simple column graphs does not provide "a lot of details", especially at thumbnail size. Accordingly, most editors simply disagree with your personal opinion of WP:SS's application to this situation; they are not ignoring it. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm just not clear what your intent is here. If you're thinking one side will concede because the arguments are concisely summarized for closer scrutiny, I'm afraid you're wrong. If you're thinking one side can impose their will because the superior strength of their arguments has been "shown", I think you're asking for trouble. But this process could bear improvement and I try to be open to ideas for how to improve it. Show us how this table is worth the additional effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think the table will be helpful to a closer, but they will still have to read the detailed comments. This discussions does need to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor. Perhaps in a few days, if there are no further !votes.- MrX 🖋 16:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: The intent is to distill essential arguments that are dispersed across eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls, to make reasoned consensus easier to gauge:
- Scjessey summarizes his argument (diff) based on his "solid understanding" of WP:SS "from working on many summary style articles"; to your credit, at least you (@Mandruss) have honestly admitted (diff) that the summary-vs.-detail issue is one of where to draw the line. WP:SS is definitely applicable, but as I mentioned two paragraphs above (21:30, 10 Nov), five Support editors specifically contradict your and Scjessey's conclusion about summary-vs.-detail. Meanwhile, Opposers PackMecEng and Jack Upland offer
non-policy-based argumentsonly brief opinions without specific policy citations, while Opposers Markbassett and MayHisShadowFallUponYou assert obviously-misplaced POV arguments against fact-finders or obviously-incorrect assertions re the wp:weight of Veracity itself. - The weight of reasoned consensus over ~six days and >7500 words outside this Discussion summary is clear. Absent new substantive arguments, it's time to re-introduce the charts into this article. Or do you think we need an outside admin to formally decide? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- In an ideal world we would have an uninvolved closer for every discussion of any significance. Since that isn't practical, we often just count !votes as a matter of expedience, but rarely when the margin is this small and the issue so strongly contested. So, unless you're prepared to omit the content as a "no consensus" situation – or the margin increases considerably – we'll need an uninvolved close – as MrX said above. It doesn't have to be an admin, just an experienced and competent editor, as per the information near the top of WP:ANRFC. And there would probably be a long wait due to the backlog; the last one was over five weeks from request to closure. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- @RCraig09: I think dismissing the comments of several editors as "non policy-based arguments" is pretty shabby and incorrect. I may not personally believe in their rationale, but their arguments do appear to be based on their own interpretations of actual policy, just as my argument is based on my interpretation of WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, I like these graphs and I certainly think they have value in the veracity article. I'm just opposed to putting them in this article because it would lead to an inconsistent application of WP:SS, and perhaps even open the door for bringing back other detailed material we've successfully excised in a quest to limit the article's footprint. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Consistency? The second paragraph of that section of the article has long contained outdated detail and other agonizingly microscopic detail. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- That is a different conversation worth having (and indeed I mention this at the beginning of #False statements below), but the focus of this discussion is about the graphs. We cannot allow whataboutism to be the deciding factor. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Consistency? The second paragraph of that section of the article has long contained outdated detail and other agonizingly microscopic detail. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm just not clear what your intent is here. If you're thinking one side will concede because the arguments are concisely summarized for closer scrutiny, I'm afraid you're wrong. If you're thinking one side can impose their will because the superior strength of their arguments has been "shown", I think you're asking for trouble. But this process could bear improvement and I try to be open to ideas for how to improve it. Show us how this table is worth the additional effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Let somebody else assess the consensus and decide. As someone who has closed a few long and complicated RfCs like this, I can say that charts like the above can be helpful, but not when they are made by a person heavily involved in the RfC. If I were closing this I would likely ignore the above chart completely and just make my own in Excel if I thought it was necessary to get a clearer view of the consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Someone: please begin the process for formally requesting an external admin/reviewer to decide. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion was opened a mere six days ago, although it feels like three weeks. MrX said
Perhaps in a few days, if there are no further !votes.
and I'm fine with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
False statements
Just to expand on the discussion about the veracity graphs, I think that entire second paragraph is also too much detail for a summary style article. The first paragraph describes Trump's mendacity as unprecedented and then we have an entire paragraph and (potentially) two graphs that try to quantify what sources mean by that. Surely that is more appropriate for Veracity of statements by Donald Trump? Do we really need to try to explain it here? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think there's an issue that's been overlooked here. We editors are experienced users of WP and undoubtedly more interested than the median WP user in further detail we find clicking links on any WP page we view. But this page comes up near the top of the screen on web browser searches and many users come here for a quick overview or curiosity about what's significant. These users are not highly likely to pursue all the links to detail articles. They also may not process bare written information as quickly as they process information that's also highlighted by a graphic. There may be data as to the click-through behavior of our users, but I have no idea whether it's accessible to us. At any rate, does anyone doubt that it would confirm the behavior I've described? If I am correct, the graphic delivers real value to a lot of our users and should be included here in Trump's bio. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- For me, the key information about this section is that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented level. The specifics and trendlines of those lies are of secondary importance, and I don't think there's "real value" to the casual reader at all. But I respect your difference of opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- That issue is not being overlooked, it's being strongly disputed. For my related comments, see the preceding subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any discussion or dispute of this surmise about actual user behavior. Diff, please? SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- My comments have been about the inherent illogic of that argument.[9] As for actual user behavior:
- If a user can't be bothered to click through to an article with more detail, they are demonstrating that their interest level is fairly superficial. That user is not going to pay much attention to the graphs anyway.
- Even if your theory were proven, it would be a relatively short-term consideration, as older generations are replaced by new generations of more web-savvy users who are far less averse to clicks.
- And so on. I question the benefit of this line of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I am concerned with the actual behavior and preferences of our current users. Your views appear to be opinions about what WP users should be doing or what some other group of users might be doing in the future. If your wishes come true, we can change the article. Meanwhile, I think this discussion addresses a core issue. It makes sense to provide for the needs and expectations of both dedicated link-clickers and casual top-level readers. Thanks for the elaboration. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- My comments have been about the inherent illogic of that argument.[9] As for actual user behavior:
- I don't see any discussion or dispute of this surmise about actual user behavior. Diff, please? SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Two observations dovetail nicely here: (1) these thumbnail charts show even lazy readers instantly (as only a graphic can do, and at a summary level) the level and intensification of falsehoods that will characterize Trump in perpetuity"a defining part of his lifelong career" —per Objective3000, above (meeting Consensus #37), and (2) readers"web-savvy" or not easily pursue details by clicking on the image or of course going to the Veracity sub-article. This combination of observations makes these charts ideal for a high-level article as well as the sub-article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, nobody is doubting the elegance of these graphs in what they are trying to achieve. The question is whether or not these graphs constitute extra detail that is best left to the main article on Trump's mendacity. I firmly believe they do not belong in this article, because all they do is reinforce what has already been said, and that is something the other article should be doing, not the summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- We might as well get rid of all graphical presentations of data, and point our readers towards source documents such as CSV data, so that they can see the details in context. I mean, if we're following that particular argument all the way. I think people come to Wikipedia to get information presented in an accessible fashion. We're not just a collection of links, after all. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Right. Why is this so sensitive? Couldn't we use the same "oppose" arguments to remove the Hollywood Star, the Inauguration photo, and other illustrations. And they're also too small to parse unless we click on the thumbnails. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Again, my opposition to the inclusion of these graphs has nothing whatsoever to do with the inclusion of any other thing, including images. My argument for exclusion is based solely on the solid understanding of I have on WP:SS that I have gleaned from working on many summary style articles over the years. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I really hate whataboutism, which pretends that we could be consistent on these things across the board – and often presents false equivalences. I'm afraid this business is far too messy, chaotic, and complex for that. Please limit discussion about the graphs to the graphs. You're free to propose removal of
the Hollywood Star, the Inauguration photo, and other illustrations
separately (or BOLDly remove them, as I don't think any of them have an explicit consensus). ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)- My point isn't about photographs. It's about presenting information to our readers in the best possible fashion. A visual summary of data sourced elsewhere. Graphs of Trump's lies (or other 2-variable data ) are commonplace in the media for precisely these reasons. --Pete (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was addressing SPECIFICO, as indicated by my indentation level. As for your comment –
I think people come to Wikipedia to get information presented in an accessible fashion.
– we are in full agreement. But I think the Veracity article is quite accessible, and you apparently don't. I don't think further debate is going to get us any closer to agreement on that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC) - When you Google search for "donald trump falsehoods", what's the first Wikipedia article you see? Answer: Not Donald Trump, but – wait for it – Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Same for "donald trump lies". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think the intention of our encyclopaedia here is to present information relevant to Don Trump in an accessible fashion for the benefit of our readers. Is there some reason why information should be presented once only? It's not as if we are short on space, surely? As for mendacity, other editors have made the point that it is a defining characteristic of this person. It's not as if we don't cover information in this article that is repeated in other more detailed articles. The graph is a summary display, not a detailed listing. --Pete (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- You are not saying anything that hasn't already been said – and countered – multiple times in this discussion. Circular argument is a pointless waste of space and time. I and others think our arguments are more convincing, which is why they are our arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Countered in that an opposing opinion has been expressed, maybe. I reject your opinion, which seems to be that it's okay to give our readers a graphical display of one of Trump's defining characteristics, just not in the Trump article. --Pete (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- And I (we) reject yours. We are drawing a line in different places, agreeing on the relevant factors but assigning them different weights. It happens a lot in this business. The mistake is in believing that there is one correct answer, a very common mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry? I haven't offered an opinion on this matter. Which of my factual statements do you find problematic? Or is it my view on your opinion that you disagree with? Could you be more specific, please? --Pete (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- My misunderstanding. After a several re-reads, some yoga meditation, and an aborted reply, you're "rejecting my opinion" as to only one narrow point, that
it's okay to give our readers a graphical display of one of Trump's defining characteristics, just not in the Trump article.
Ok, rejection received and rejected. The fact that it's related to one of Trump's defining characteristics does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in my view. You could make the same argument for all kinds of additional content about the falsehoods thing, but that content wouldn't automatically qualify for this article, either. I suspect you would agree with that, which means you are prepared to draw a line on that. As I said, we are drawing that line in different places, and there is no "correct" place for that line.In anticipation of your rebuttal, the fact that it's graphical does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in my view, either, although I clearly hear your opinion that it should. That's a matter of editorial judgment, and editors will disagree on editorial judgment. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- My misunderstanding. After a several re-reads, some yoga meditation, and an aborted reply, you're "rejecting my opinion" as to only one narrow point, that
- I'm sorry? I haven't offered an opinion on this matter. Which of my factual statements do you find problematic? Or is it my view on your opinion that you disagree with? Could you be more specific, please? --Pete (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- And I (we) reject yours. We are drawing a line in different places, agreeing on the relevant factors but assigning them different weights. It happens a lot in this business. The mistake is in believing that there is one correct answer, a very common mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Countered in that an opposing opinion has been expressed, maybe. I reject your opinion, which seems to be that it's okay to give our readers a graphical display of one of Trump's defining characteristics, just not in the Trump article. --Pete (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- You are not saying anything that hasn't already been said – and countered – multiple times in this discussion. Circular argument is a pointless waste of space and time. I and others think our arguments are more convincing, which is why they are our arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think the intention of our encyclopaedia here is to present information relevant to Don Trump in an accessible fashion for the benefit of our readers. Is there some reason why information should be presented once only? It's not as if we are short on space, surely? As for mendacity, other editors have made the point that it is a defining characteristic of this person. It's not as if we don't cover information in this article that is repeated in other more detailed articles. The graph is a summary display, not a detailed listing. --Pete (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was addressing SPECIFICO, as indicated by my indentation level. As for your comment –
- My point isn't about photographs. It's about presenting information to our readers in the best possible fashion. A visual summary of data sourced elsewhere. Graphs of Trump's lies (or other 2-variable data ) are commonplace in the media for precisely these reasons. --Pete (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Right. Why is this so sensitive? Couldn't we use the same "oppose" arguments to remove the Hollywood Star, the Inauguration photo, and other illustrations. And they're also too small to parse unless we click on the thumbnails. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- To “nobody is doubting the elegance of these charts”, I think that’s incorrect - a month by month iteration is complicated, not elegant; and of two counts that don’t agree and isn’t obvious as to what it’s saying ... meh. The things said above on how this would “characterize Trump in perpetuity” seem more aspirational goal OR than something actual being summarized or of an actual impact in his life. I don’t know if he’s even much aware of these two counters, let alone a monthly chart, but this isn’t showing something that’s affected him much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm pretty that sure most readers with a sixth grade education would not struggle to understand the two dimensions of these charts. This is not an article about what affects Trump, so your comment in that regard is disqualifying in my opinion. Trump's frequent falsehoods are one of the most reported and enduring aspects of his life. Anything we can do to quantify and organize the extent of his lying will help our readers better understand the subject.- MrX 🖋 11:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have a sixth grade education, and I understood the charts. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, Trump's unprecedented mendacity affects everyone else, and RS and fact-checkers have documented this unprecedented phenomenon. That some editors don't think he's the biggest liar ever is irrelevant here, and their personal POV should not cause them to ignore Wikipedia's dependence on what RS say. Their allegiance should be to RS, not to protecting and white-washing Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:BullRangifer I'll cover the three points I raised again with detail, as the items of my input. If you want to talk about your view of the topic area in general or that opinions vary is fine, verging out of AGF not so much. But in doing this you're just not speaking to the objections for this specific edit. If you can dispute these points of evidence and policy, then do so. If you can't, then accept that maybe not every edit belongs.
- UNDUE - the bio of Trump should not have Toronto Star above the proportion of coverage that has ... and while the press has snarked at a few things, they do not typically go to the rest nor overall total or discussing these summary opinions in particular. By simple Google counts I see Trump has an absurd 1,910,000,000 hits -- but Trump and "Toronto Star" Google I get 793,000. So the Star's coverage of him or any mention of the two is 4 ten-thousandths of the total. If you make it about the fact-count in particular Trump and "Daniel Dale" it is 198,000 hits -- one ten-thousandth. Basically ALL coverage around his counting in total is down in the microscopic level of coverage, and almost all of that is about hitting a new level or that counting exists. This week-by-week coverage that was just recently done ... obviously will be down at the hundred-thousandths or -millionths level. It does not deserve a BLP mention, let alone the highlighted prominence of imagery.
- No Enduring Impact This article is Trump's BLP, and in terms of what effect or importance these weekly displays have had to his life, or even the existence of counts -- there seems not even awareness that they exist, and if it has made no difference then it just doesn't matter.. This isn't a personal characteristic or event in his life, it's just pushing a POV talking point that has not had any importance and as shown just is not significantly covered.
- Unclear OK, two similar displays of per-period total next to each other ... So, is this trying to show that Washington and Toronto disagree about 'false' ? (Well they do, but I don't think this is a way to show that.) Is this trying to show that 'False and misleading' is mostly just 'misleading' by how they differ ? Is this to show that counts strongly disagree week-by-week ? It's just not clear what either of them is showing nor what the comparison is supposed to show. and if it isn't at all clear without a caption - then a diagram isn't helping. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- In my army days, if the officers wanted explanations as to why we troops weren't buzzing around doing trooply things, we'd explain at great length in a certain mode of dialect. "BBB" we called it: "Bullshit Baffles Brains". Mark, none of the above makes any sense or has any relation to policy here. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, Pete is right. I'm not sure how to characterize your
argumentscomments, but BBB is a good description. They seem like a lot of words to get around documenting what RS say. - The "impact on his life" argument is especially specious (for some odd reason it only gets trotted out for dealing with negative information about him) because Trump is teflon, so nothing sticks to him, and therefore, by your reasoning, we should just ignore what RS say and not mention anything which doesn't have some "impact" on him
- That is totally unlike how we deal with the same types of content for everyone else, because they are normal and the reality which RS document about them actually has an impact on their lives. No, forget the subjective "personal impact" argument. We should treat him like we treat every effing human being described by RS. "Trump Exemption Policy"(*) is not a real Wikipedia policy. Your three "comments" are not worthy of retort. They pretty much ignore many of our policies. Trump's "teflonness" does not justify protecting and whitewashing him. Look to RS for guidance, not to Trump. His guidance can be safely ignored.
- (*) FYI, the "Trump Exemption Policy" describes how content regarding Trump is held to a much higher bar by his supporters here than for any other notable person. This does not happen to other people. Such kid glove treatment (only for him) is not based on policy, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which lowers the bar for public persons, and Trump is THE most public person. The bar for inclusion of any type of content and/or unproven allegation (and this isn't an unproven allegation) is very low for public figures. We aren't even in this territory.
- No special exemptions for Trump. Okay? Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, Pete is right. I'm not sure how to characterize your
- In my army days, if the officers wanted explanations as to why we troops weren't buzzing around doing trooply things, we'd explain at great length in a certain mode of dialect. "BBB" we called it: "Bullshit Baffles Brains". Mark, none of the above makes any sense or has any relation to policy here. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:BullRangifer I'll cover the three points I raised again with detail, as the items of my input. If you want to talk about your view of the topic area in general or that opinions vary is fine, verging out of AGF not so much. But in doing this you're just not speaking to the objections for this specific edit. If you can dispute these points of evidence and policy, then do so. If you can't, then accept that maybe not every edit belongs.
- Markbassett, Trump's unprecedented mendacity affects everyone else, and RS and fact-checkers have documented this unprecedented phenomenon. That some editors don't think he's the biggest liar ever is irrelevant here, and their personal POV should not cause them to ignore Wikipedia's dependence on what RS say. Their allegiance should be to RS, not to protecting and white-washing Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have a sixth grade education, and I understood the charts. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm pretty that sure most readers with a sixth grade education would not struggle to understand the two dimensions of these charts. This is not an article about what affects Trump, so your comment in that regard is disqualifying in my opinion. Trump's frequent falsehoods are one of the most reported and enduring aspects of his life. Anything we can do to quantify and organize the extent of his lying will help our readers better understand the subject.- MrX 🖋 11:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:BullRangifer reply for ping (what another one ?) Yes, WEIGHT for a week by week chart does not exist, no need to get huffy with me over the fact. And 'no enduring impact' has been discussed before in whether items are just story-du-jour or don't belong in a BLP before. No point in getting angry over these charts not having that either. The rest of your post seems not asking about my 3 input points or about the charts topic, but I will suggest that if normal BLPs don't have questions of negative trivia being shoved at them as often, ehhh, that also seems just a fact. No special exceptions for Trump criticisms either, Okay ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
To the extent that the charts are asserted to "duplicate" content that's already in the text, consider: would it be wiser to insert the charts and remove (some of) the text? Humans absorb visual representations nearly instantaneously, whereas abstract textual/language representations (coming along much later in evolution) are much harder to process—the "picture is worth a thousand words" phenomenon mentioned above. . . . . . . . Also consider: the existing text goes into a fair amount of non-summary detail that Opposers object to in the charts! And non-summary "details" can only be seen in the charts if they click on them—presumably because they want immediate access to more detail. . . . . P.S. The thumbnail chart—2x3 inches on my desktop computer—is not "tiny" except on a cellphone. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Even if the graphs are included, I don't see much duplication unless we speak in very general terms. The closest we come to duplication is the midterm election spike, and even there the prose gives information not readily apparent in the graphs: For the seven weeks leading up to the midterm elections, it rose to an average of thirty per day from 4.9 during his first hundred days in office. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The text is far more accessible than the graphs. Consider what a visually impaired person is supposed to do with a graph, for example. A picture is worth zero words to a blind person. I get why some editors want these graphs, I really do, but I just think those editors have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:SS. By moving the "summary needle" to accommodate the graphs, it effectively moves it to let a whole lot of other shit back in that we have successfully excised. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Who says text is far more accessible than the graphs? I'm sure you have heard of Dyslexia, Hyperlexia, and ADHD. As long as we have the important information in words and graphics, everyone wins. (Besides, the graphs can be summarized in ALT tags.)- MrX 🖋 13:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Red herrings
Any normal article welcomes the addition of an auxiliary graph to present a visual indication of data. The comments about blind or dyslexic readers are valid, but it is pointless trying to craft pertinent guidelines here in a political article. Wikistyle on these matters may be found elsewhere as accepted over the many years we've been doing this job of presenting information. We should comply with style - of course - but may I suggest that any editor in this current discussion quote relevant guidelines at WP:ACCESSIBILITY rather than reaching into the air?
Wikipedia isn't short on space. Typically we present information in the body of an article, in summary form in the lede, and if the topic warrants it, in more detail in specialised articles. Obviously we can't jam the entire article into the WP:LEDE - that's not what it's for - but I suggest that if material in the body warrants its own specialised article, as this topic does here, then the topic is worthy of inclusion in the lede; it's not something that is seen as minor.
The nature of a graph is to summarise information and present it in an easily-grasped form. Graphs are commonplace in Wikipedia articles. Currently our lede text says "Trump has made many false or misleading statements…" and I suggest that this is something that could apply to any politician. Trump takes it far beyond that anodyne statement, and it is a defining characteristic of the man; a point made by many in discussion above, and not seriously challenged. Adding a graph to underline the significance is hardly controversial in itself.
The only point here should be whether it belongs in the lede according to MOS guidelines, or in the body. --Pete (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why are we talking about the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Skyring: By your rationale, we should eliminate all the daughter articles we created in support of WP:SS and shove the whole lot into this article. I don't disagree that the graphs are useful, but I regard them as finer detail best left to the appropriate daughter article. By the way, "The Rouge Clupeidae" will be my new band name. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Pete makes a good point about due weight as a determining factor for inclusion in the lead of an article:
- "but I suggest that if material in the body warrants its own specialised article, as this topic does here, then the topic is worthy of inclusion in the lede; it's not something that is seen as minor."
When one reads a large mother article of significance, like this one, it will have many sections, a number of which are short summaries of SPINOFF sub-articles. One could get the mistaken impression (gained from visually comparing the size of sections) that many of those short summaries are of less due weight than the longer sections which do not link to a sub-article. That is often the exact opposite of reality. Those "longer sections which do not link to a sub-article" have so little due weight that they don't deserve a sub-article, and thus only short mention in the lead.
To properly gauge due weight, one should look at the sub-article, and then realize that it often has much more due weight than a section not leading to a sub-article. It was so weighty that we could not give it full coverage in the mother article. So keep that in mind when determining what and how much should be mentioned in the lead. Give those sub-articles their due weight in the lead of the mother article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why are we talking about the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- "By your rationale, we should eliminate all the daughter articles we created in support of WP:SS and shove the whole lot into this article." No, Scjessey, That's not the case. See, there's a reason I used the phrase red herrings above.
- My point is that we should stick to policy, unless there is a compelling reason to WP:IAR. If you want to talk about blind people as a reason to not have a graph in this article, that has already been discussed at a higher level and the Manual of Style tells us what to do. --Pete (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was trying to make a point about how cutting text in favor of the graphs would be foolish, but my rationale for excluding the graphs remains that they represent too much detail for a summary style article. Bear in mind that this is my view despite my personal distaste for the odious subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not advocating cutting text at all, unless it's the sort of data-dense material that is best put into graphical form. I think with Don Trump, having a graphical representation of the volume of falsehoods over time presents information that is readily accessible without having to resort to "pre-digested" statements, or looking deeper into the source. It's available at a glance, because that is the way we tend to assimilate information. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was trying to make a point about how cutting text in favor of the graphs would be foolish, but my rationale for excluding the graphs remains that they represent too much detail for a summary style article. Bear in mind that this is my view despite my personal distaste for the odious subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- WEIGHT? Think this said that backwards. WEIGHT is *against* the chart being present at all, there factually is not prominence to a series of weekly counts for Trump. A few noted instances and midterm election period, yes. Abstract counts for every week, no. A weekly numbers proportion of coverage or a chart of such has not shown much WEIGHT. On a related note...weekly number x and y and z also are not in the article so the chart just isn’t a summary of something here. Those are just the facts... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Bankruptcies and branding
I have reverted two edits by SPECIFICO from 19–20 October that had escaped scrutiny until today.[10][11] The modified wording implied that the Trump Organization diversified into branding as a reaction to bankruptcies suffered in the 1980s and 1990s. First, I don't know whether there's an established connection, as Trump was keen on slapping his name on other people's businesses long before his casino ventures failed: two of the sources mention an example of that branding fever, with the gold-plated "Trump Cadillac" marketed in 1988.[3][4] Second, edit summaries said "per sources", and after reading all cited sources, I do not see that they make any link between the bankruptcies and the branded ventures. For reference, I have listed below all the sources cited in the "Branding and licensing" paragraph,[5][3][4][6][7][8] and SPECIFICO did not add any new source with those edits. Therefore, the assertion injected into the article and its lead section looks like WP:Synthesis and cannot stand. — JFG talk 10:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- The very first source, early on, says
The ventures enable him to hang the Trump logo on towers from India to Panama without chipping in a dime.
etc. etc. I think your concern is overstated. The time sequence is known. Yes he branded much of his work whenever possible, but the strategy of branding with only carried interest and no capital required or invested is documented to have developed at the time referenced in both versions. Moreover, the juxtaposition of "expanded beyond NY and "branding & licensing" in the version you restored is SYNTH also untrue. He branded and licensed in New York, e.g. in Riverside South after he gave up most of his ownership in the largest share developed in the 1990's. If there is a source that links branding with "outside NY", I don't see it. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:JFG thanks - Would want to not edit long-standing lead bit just for stability and from an absence of a strong need or change, plus those edits are longer in a too-long lead and they did not TALK a proposal before editing. Really no need to go into narrative detail and motive in Lead, just stick to the facts of naming the major items seems all the lead should try. The chronology and logic there also seems wrong - you can’t have a 1988 reaction for the 1992 real estate bust and his bankruptcy, and the time of diversifying into Trump car / Trump shuttle / Trump casinos is in his boom times long after the 1982 real estate bust. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, those are not licensing deals. Those were capital investments. Please stay on topic. SPECIFICO talk 06:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:SPECIFICO Main point is still do not need a lead change or longer lead, there has been no change or new event there, but re the topic is proposal that Other ventures are a refocus due to 1980s and 1990s, said “branding, management, and licensing”, and then pointed to the Other ventures section which includes Trump shuttle. Really the logic of a 1990s bust causing the 1980s items listed or the 2010+ items listed doesn’t ring solid. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, those are not licensing deals. Those were capital investments. Please stay on topic. SPECIFICO talk 06:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Amend consensus #13
#Current consensus #13 currently reads:
Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours.
Number 13 has proven to be very helpful, but I propose two improvements, as follows.
- For a long time we have treated "answered" edit requests as closed discussions for the purpose of manual archival per #13. There is no reason to keep answered edit requests around for the full seven days. I personally have allowed exception to that if there was any follow-on discussion after the "answer"; i.e. in that case I treated it as a normal discussion thread. There has been some confusion about this on a couple of occasions.
- While we're at it, we could clarify that we can't manually archive a closed discussion after 24 hours if there has been a challenge to the close in that time. Again, that has been the practice, but it's better to have the consensus and the practice in agreement.
Proposed text:
Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 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".
- Support as proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose too complicated. It's already a good mini-sub-system. Prefer to leave it as is. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Amend #13 counter-proposal
- Counter-proposal:
"Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer", and (3) edit requests that do not conform to instructions, archivable at any time.
- This will help keep frivolous requests and trolling off the talk page.- MrX 🖋 15:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why did I think this would be simple and straightforward? I'll Oppose that as a bit harsh even for me. Obvious trolling obviously goes straight to the trash, and no reasonable person would interpret my proposed text as protection for obvious trolling. Per AGF, if there is any room to believe that the user might be acting in good faith (even total incompetence is not bad faith), then they deserve a response and the 24-hour wait.For example, the edit request immediately preceding [now archived]. It's just possible that the user actually saw some spelling errors, didn't know they had to be specific, and would be specific if challenged and given the chance. And we would fix some spelling errors that we weren't aware of.Similarly, an edit request that is more specific but not specific enough, but otherwise looks like good faith, deserves a response and the 24-hour wait. We could even write a canned response and save it somewhere. Remember, these requests rarely come from people who know how to use the page history, so they won't see your edit summary on the removal; all they will know is that their request disappeared. Oh but wait, the One-Click Archiver doesn't let you enter an edit summary, so knowing how to use the page history would be no help as to understanding what they did wrong.Let's err on the side of trust, particularly when the cost of doing so is so low. Simply throwing things away should be used with extreme discretion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Who knew it would be controversial to move an unactionable edit request to the archives. There is a reason why Wikipedia is not based on firm, bureaucratic rules. If you think such a request merits a response, then perhaps responding on the user's talk page would be best. I'm suspicious about an ungrammatical request to fix unspecified spelling errors on a 15,962 word article. - MrX 🖋 16:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why did I think this would be simple and straightforward? I'll Oppose that as a bit harsh even for me. Obvious trolling obviously goes straight to the trash, and no reasonable person would interpret my proposed text as protection for obvious trolling. Per AGF, if there is any room to believe that the user might be acting in good faith (even total incompetence is not bad faith), then they deserve a response and the 24-hour wait.For example, the edit request immediately preceding [now archived]. It's just possible that the user actually saw some spelling errors, didn't know they had to be specific, and would be specific if challenged and given the chance. And we would fix some spelling errors that we weren't aware of.Similarly, an edit request that is more specific but not specific enough, but otherwise looks like good faith, deserves a response and the 24-hour wait. We could even write a canned response and save it somewhere. Remember, these requests rarely come from people who know how to use the page history, so they won't see your edit summary on the removal; all they will know is that their request disappeared. Oh but wait, the One-Click Archiver doesn't let you enter an edit summary, so knowing how to use the page history would be no help as to understanding what they did wrong.Let's err on the side of trust, particularly when the cost of doing so is so low. Simply throwing things away should be used with extreme discretion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry but this seems unnecessary. I think it is best to keep it as it is. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Amend #13 counter-counter-proposal
- Counter-counter-proposal:
"All archiving is handled by Mandruss as Mandruss sees fit, because if it ain't broke...
- Support, but oppose giving him the title until he's paid his dues and proven himself more reliable than Mr. Sigmabot III. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, November 7, 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The obvious is never a problem. Guy (help!) 23:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I took this counter-proposal as satire, but if we can't get a quorum of participation on this I will treat it as a mandate to change #13 as I see fit (maybe it would be easier to get forgiveness than permission). If this seems trivial to you, which I could dispute at length, a !vote here requires a trivial amount of your time and brainpower. Please !vote Oppose or Support in one or both of the preceding subsections, preferably both. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support This is obviously a real solution, even if some people laugh. It takes grit and guts to be inventive and to go against the grain. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Steve Quinn: Since you Opposed my proposal above, I take it you mean I should actually do all manual archiving myself, based on criteria known only to me. Sorry, that's a non-starter as I could lose interest in this article and move on tomorrow. Not only that, but putting one editor in charge of anything is simply never done and would not be sustained by the community. Just imagine: A new editor arrives and manually archives something, and they get reverted with a pointer to the consensus that says all manual archiving is to be done by Mandruss. What do you think their reaction is likely to be? How would you react? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss. Can I get an answer in (here) edgewise? This could be a nightmare, but you wanted the job, absent or not. Sorry, but consensus is breaking your way, and we all know that consensus is central and binding on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Steve Quinn:
but you wanted the job
Huh? When have I said I wanted any job? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)- @Mandruss: My mistake. You did not say you wanted this job. I see now this was someone else's proposal. Well, this might throw my premise(s) out the window, on which my recent responses are based. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bar that window! The man was offered an unenviable position of power and knew it made sense when he typed "Damn skippy" and clicked "Publish changes". Backing out after informed consent is legal, but it's political suicide to seem wishy-washy in front of a bot one wishes to topple (even fleetingly); opportunity does not knock twice in this game. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, November 9, 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: My mistake. You did not say you wanted this job. I see now this was someone else's proposal. Well, this might throw my premise(s) out the window, on which my recent responses are based. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Steve Quinn:
- Mandruss. Can I get an answer in (here) edgewise? This could be a nightmare, but you wanted the job, absent or not. Sorry, but consensus is breaking your way, and we all know that consensus is central and binding on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Steve Quinn: Further, you have said above you prefer to "leave it as it is", but here you say you prefer to change it. Which is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss:My responses are similar to the sound of one hand clapping. Know this and you'll understand, Grasshopper. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I fixed the wikilink for "one hand clapping" so it goes to the correct subsection on that page. I don't know if I would go so far as to say, I did this for the sake of clarity. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I was only partly being satirical. You have been doing a fantastic job when it comes to archiving, applying the appropriate tags to RfCs, etc. In all seriousness, I hope you continue to do what you've been doing until you get bored of this article and move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: Thanks very much, nice to be appreciated. I'm not so good at the more important stuff, so I try to do a lot of the administrative clerking to free up some time for editors who are. Indirectly, that helps improve the article. Others editors help too, but if I named any of them I'd be insulting the ones I don't (always a problem with any kind of recognition). They know who they are. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Corporate raider revisited
In May I added this under Side Ventures...
The New York Times reported in May 2019 that in the late 1980s Trump fashioned himself as a corporate raider by buying minority stakes in publicly-held companies and announcing he intended to acquire majority stakes. The announcement would cause a "bump" in the stock's price, at which point Trump quietly sold his stake for a profit. The Times reported that Trump ultimately lost back most or all of his gains after other investors concluded he was not seriously attempting takeovers.
...which was reverted and discussed, without an apparent consensus, then just kinda...faded away. Funny how that happens sometimes.
I propose we reconsider this material, and actually consider expanding it because there's quite a lot of historical reliable source reporting about it, some of which is in the Talk link above. soibangla (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Too minor for the main biography. Worth including (briefly) in Business career of Donald Trump. — JFG talk 08:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is very interesting biographical information. I would support it if someone can identify at least three strong sources to show that it's noteworthy.- MrX 🖋 13:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Soibangla, I'm with JFG on this one. Guy (help!) 14:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think this is unremarkable. There are thousands of these types (individuals and corporations) doing this sort of thing. It makes Trump look bad, but so does literally everything else he does. I agree with JFG's proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Everything else he does, sure, but this paragraph describes a resourceful, trustworthy, influential investor who kept some of his winnings some of the time. Even if it was just a penny, that's still a penny he didn't have before he increased the value of whichever public company with minimal effort. But yeah, whether this is a compliment or not, it's clearly more about his business, so I'll also bet everything on JFG's shrewd restructuring plan paying off in the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, November 8, 2019 (UTC)
- That other people have done this is irrelevant..put it in leave it in..it is central to his character. 2600:1702:2340:9470:B098:C314:EA12:9BBE (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Everything else he does, sure, but this paragraph describes a resourceful, trustworthy, influential investor who kept some of his winnings some of the time. Even if it was just a penny, that's still a penny he didn't have before he increased the value of whichever public company with minimal effort. But yeah, whether this is a compliment or not, it's clearly more about his business, so I'll also bet everything on JFG's shrewd restructuring plan paying off in the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, November 8, 2019 (UTC)
Typo
In the "early actions" sub-section of the "Presidency section", there is a typo in the sentence that makes up the third paragraph. "On January 31, Trump nominated U.S. Appeals Court judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat on the Supreme Court previous held by Justice Antonin Scalia until his death on February 13, 2016" It should be "previously held", not "previous held". WesSirius (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Also, in the "ISIS and foreign wars" section, there's a sentence with what I believe may be a typo. "On January 6, 2019, national security advisor John Bolton announced America would remain in Syria until ISIS is eradicated and Turkey guaranteed it would not strike America's Kurdish allies." Unless there's some grammar convention I'm unaware of, it should be "ISIS was eradicated", not "ISIS is eradicated." WesSirius (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Is" is correct when speaking of a future event. The timespan when ISIS was eradicated extends from that point indefinitely, way too vague. Should be "Turkey guarantees", as well. But yeah, "previous held" is just plain wrong. As far as I know, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, November 10, 2019 (UTC)
- I think according to traditional grammar it's "was" because the tense should be consistent.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- And now it is. I also changed "foreign wars" to collective singular "war". What was the qualifier good for? Absolutely nothing. Just invokes the fictional (fictitious?) New Civil War. The adverb is an adverb now, which was previously the important thing. Thanks, Wes! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, November 10, 2019 (UTC)
- Just noticed you and I both took small steps toward consistency at precisely 05:11, but on completely different sides of the sentence and entirely opposite ends of the article. Neat. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, November 10, 2019 (UTC)
- I think according to traditional grammar it's "was" because the tense should be consistent.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Is" is correct when speaking of a future event. The timespan when ISIS was eradicated extends from that point indefinitely, way too vague. Should be "Turkey guarantees", as well. But yeah, "previous held" is just plain wrong. As far as I know, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, November 10, 2019 (UTC)
Overciting in racial views section
I recently removed some unnecessary sources from this section in particular. However, these changes were reverted by another edit so I'm putting this matter to the talk page to discuss which citations can be removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- My rule of thumb is no more than three consecutive cites. Within that rule of thumb, I don't think you can have too many cites for a controversial topic area (and more than three is occasionally justifiable). That section currently has no more than two consecutive cites. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- The issue is that there are consecutive citations very often, not simply that there are a few times of many citations. The main concern is that these are often simply unnecessary and exacerbate the size of the article needlessly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- For easy reference, here is a list of the sentences that have more than one cite:
- Trump has repeatedly denied he is a racist.[1][2]
- Many of his supporters say the way he speaks reflects his general rejection of political correctness, while others accept it simply because they share such beliefs.[3][4]
- Several studies and surveys have found that racist attitudes fueled Trump's political ascendance and have been more important than economic factors in determining the allegiance of Trump voters.[4][5]
- In April 2011, Trump claimed credit for pushing the White House to publish the "long-form" birth certificate, which he considered fraudulent, and later stated that his stance had made him "very popular".[6][7]
- In particular, his campaign launch speech drew widespread criticism for saying Mexican immigrants were "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists".[8][9]
- His remarks were condemned as racist worldwide, as well as by many members of Congress.[10][11]
- For easy reference, here is a list of the sentences that have more than one cite:
- The issue is that there are consecutive citations very often, not simply that there are a few times of many citations. The main concern is that these are often simply unnecessary and exacerbate the size of the article needlessly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- None of those really jump out at me and say, "Not controversial enough for two cites! Reduce!". If
there are consecutive citations very often
, perhaps that's because there are controversial sentences very often.Cutting this stuff is a bad way to reduce file size. Instead, try summary style in a lot of the other sections related to the presidency – that would reduce both citations and the associated prose. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC) - I suppose #1 could be reduced to one cite. It almost goes without saying that Trump denies being a racist. Not many people admit to being a racist, and none of them have been presidents of the U.S. That sentence exists only because NPOV requires us to include his denial. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- First of all you are omitting the content characterising Trump as racist, which has more references than those you have listed here. For everything you have listed however, it only takes one reliable source to support the content. None of these are particularly controversial. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- None of those really jump out at me and say, "Not controversial enough for two cites! Reduce!". If
- Here are my initial comments. First, Onetwothreeip, could you include the citations in your list above so we can examine them, and also let us know which specific sources you think should be removed?
- I think a good principle to follow is that any sentence or closely related group of sentences that are controversial (most of this article, unfortunately) should be supported by 2-3 strong sources. This benefits readers by showing that the information is widely reported. It also indicates that the material satisfies WP:DUEWEIGHT. The size of the article due to the number of sources should not be a significant concern. Trimming 10 sources from an article with 813 sources will barely move the needle. If we do trim sources, we have to make absolutely sure that the remaining sources fully verify the article content. I have seen many case where users remove sources that are required per WP:V. Later, another editor will come along and remove or alter the content because it's not properly sourced. - MrX 🖋 12:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
include the citations in your list
It's actually my list (though I can share), so I've added the citations. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)- Sorry, I still had sleep in my eyes.- MrX 🖋 14:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding the cites Mandruss. There are no more than two cites per sentence. That is far from excessive.- MrX 🖋 14:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- There are 31 instances of citations in the section though. It is not only that some content has two citations instead of two, it is how often there are multiple citations, in addition to how often the citations are used. Overall this is simply excessive, particularly keeping in mind that the statements taken individually are not actually controversial. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily controversy in the real world or controversy among the public or notable experts. The multiple cites relate to controversies that arose over the course of editing the page. They help prevent us from rehashing the same issues after consensus. Consensus can change, but it should not be rehashed and ultimately resolved the same way after we go back and restore the same citations because they may appear to be excessive or redundant. And that's what tends to happen when they're pared to a minimum on text that's been controversial among WP editors. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you SPECIFICO, which statements have been controversial over the course of editing where multiple sources have been necessary? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: - probably
Trump has made numerous comments and taken certain actions that have been characterized as racially charged or racist, both by those within the U.S. and by those abroad
, and in False statementsThe statements have been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics
starship.paint (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: - probably
- Thank you SPECIFICO, which statements have been controversial over the course of editing where multiple sources have been necessary? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Controversy between Wikipedia editors is less important than public controversy when it comes to the number of citations. It's likely that a healthy majority of the 62,984,828 U.S. citizens who voted for him would disagree with most of those six sentences – hence, public controversy, even if they disagree silently for the most part – and "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up."If you want to trim cites, do it for things like "In 1977, Trump married Czech model Ivana Zelníčková", not for things like this. There is plenty of trimming opportunity in those areas, and one could probably eliminate 20 or so cites without being reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- And even if a reader does not dispute the truth of a statement, they may question its significance, and in that case we are establishing WP:WEIGHT. While two sources aren't much compared to the total number of sources, they are 100% more than one. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip, In theory, one really solid source that reviews the subject and itself cites multiple data points, should be sufficient. I practice what happens is that people who dispute a fact or an interpretation will quibble until more sources are added, or will remove sources with the eventual goal of removing the content altogether. Exactly per Mandruss, I'd say anything more than three sources for a statement is usually overkill, but three or fewer is rarely a problem demanding urgent resolution. There are bigger issues, such as use of third and fourth rate sources in political articles (notably The Hill, sundry tabloids such as Washington Examiner, Fox News and MSNBC).
- Getting everything to a state where it is sourced to something at least as good as the WSJ or WaPo would seem to me to be a better focus. Guy (help!) 12:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the first part of what JzG said. We have had history of needing more sources to justify inclusion of controversial content as WP:DUE. Also sometimes, multiple sources are needed to source a given tidbit. I know Onetwothreeip tends to trim sources due to overciting - I do not know if (1) people will eventually argue that the content fails WP:DUE with less sources, or (2) if the content fails WP:V when crucial sources are removed. starship.paint (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Starship.paint, it's a knotty problem, you have to actually read each source and check that what supports the actual text, with a view to choosing those which cover most content and with most overlap. Guy (help!) 15:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the first part of what JzG said. We have had history of needing more sources to justify inclusion of controversial content as WP:DUE. Also sometimes, multiple sources are needed to source a given tidbit. I know Onetwothreeip tends to trim sources due to overciting - I do not know if (1) people will eventually argue that the content fails WP:DUE with less sources, or (2) if the content fails WP:V when crucial sources are removed. starship.paint (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
"Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency."
Lying in politics is as old as politics itself. There's even a joke about - "How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving." So yes, this statement is correct, but this could honestly be said about almost any politician. Some examples: "Read my lips - no new taxes." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "I open every letter and read them all." "The bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage [tax] cuts." And a top 10 by the liberal WaPo itself on a man I voted for twice: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/
This statement is dis-genuine and does not properly portray the entire landscape. Grossmisconduct (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out by the reliable sources, Trump lies way, way, way more than any other politician. He's in a class by himself. A few examples of other politicians lying doesn't change that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:Muboshgu No, “many false or misleading” is the consensus. As I recall... “Lies” wasn’t what the preponderance of RS use, explaining that requires internal knowledge. Also “more than any other politician” as a comparison would be avoided, and stating an absolute was an extreme claim which would require extreme proof. There just are a lot of candidates, and we digressed into if “biggest liar” was phrasing for who had told the largest whopper rather than the most items or most frequently said one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, Donald Trump lies.[1][2][3] Whether that's what the "preponderance of RS" say or not, Donald Trump lies. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:Muboshgu again, past discussions concluded otherwise — it’s in the archives. Yes, some such sites exist, as do others criticizing those or alternatively saying he is truthful or that media lies.. But for WP, it is “many false or misleading” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, I'm not proposing changing the language. The thread starter said "lying" so I'm using that word too. It's true and not a BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:Muboshgu again, past discussions concluded otherwise — it’s in the archives. Yes, some such sites exist, as do others criticizing those or alternatively saying he is truthful or that media lies.. But for WP, it is “many false or misleading” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, Donald Trump lies.[1][2][3] Whether that's what the "preponderance of RS" say or not, Donald Trump lies. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:Muboshgu No, “many false or misleading” is the consensus. As I recall... “Lies” wasn’t what the preponderance of RS use, explaining that requires internal knowledge. Also “more than any other politician” as a comparison would be avoided, and stating an absolute was an extreme claim which would require extreme proof. There just are a lot of candidates, and we digressed into if “biggest liar” was phrasing for who had told the largest whopper rather than the most items or most frequently said one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- The statement is the product of massive amounts of discussion on multiple occasions, available for your perusal in this page's archives, which have established the consensus that it fairly reflects the body of reliable sources on the subject. If you can find that weight of sources for Obama's falsehoods, please present some of it at Talk:Barack Obama. Ten "biggest whoppers" listed by one reliable source doesn't even begin to suffice. The same goes for any other politician, including two Clintons and one Nixon. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Grossmisconduct, most politicians manage to give a convincing impression of at least caring about the objective truth of what they say. Trump is unusual in not bothering. Guy (help!) 13:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
James Comey had frequent discussions with Trump, and in his first major interview after his firing he described Trump as a serial liar who tells "baffling, unnecessary" falsehoods:[4]
- "Sometimes he's lying in ways that are obvious, sometimes he's saying things that we may not know are true or false and then there's a spectrum in between....he is someone who is — for whom the truth is not a high value."[4]
- "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward."[5]
- Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'[6]
- "[W]hat we have never had is a president of the United States who uses lying and untruth as a basic method to promote his policies, his beliefs and his way of approaching the American people and engaging in the world.... Uniquely, we have a president who does not believe in truth." -- Carl Bernstein[7]
See also Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|