Dervorguilla (talk | contribs) →BLP violation in lede: anchor |
Dervorguilla (talk | contribs) →BLP violation in lede: add 'Look at it this way: Has any high-quality source proposed that Trump was more candid or truthful last year than he is this year?'; clarify other points |
||
Line 396: | Line 396: | ||
::::: [[User:Dervorguilla|Dervorguilla]], are you OK with the wording in the last set of talk-quotes above? --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 04:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC) |
::::: [[User:Dervorguilla|Dervorguilla]], are you OK with the wording in the last set of talk-quotes above? --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 04:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::: ''None'' of the above, [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]]! According to BBC News and other top-ranked authorities, Trump is currently indicating he would not ban persons based on religion. Rather, he's saying he would ban persons based on national origin. |
:::::: ''None'' of the above, [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]]! According to BBC News and other top-ranked authorities, Trump is currently indicating he would not ban persons based on religion. Rather, he's openly saying he would ban persons based on national origin. |
||
:::::: Muslims from England or Scotland: OK. Persons of ''any'' claimed religion from Syria: not OK. |
:::::: Muslims from England or Scotland: OK. Persons of ''any'' claimed religion from Syria: not OK. |
||
:::::: In his platform, Trump is unmistakably advocating ''national-origin'' discrimination. |
:::::: In his platform, Trump is unmistakably advocating ''national-origin'' discrimination. |
||
:::::: |
:::::: Many readers are intensely interested in this controversy -- including Muslims living in England! We owe them the best available information as judged by its authority, accuracy/verifiability, and currency. (''MLA Handbook''.) ''Not'' as judged by our own arguments (however logical) that Trump's statement is confusing or misleading. |
||
:::::: The four authorities cited above do ''not'' support the information that "his platform includes ... a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims". |
:::::: The four authorities cited above do ''not'' support the information that "his platform includes ... a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims". Indeed, they would seem more to contradict it. For this reason, I'm removing the information forthwith. |
||
:::::: That "Trump has never retracted his previous proposed 'ban on Muslims'" is almost a truism |
:::::: That "Trump has never retracted his previous proposed 'ban on Muslims'" is almost a truism; as a matter of principle, Trump doesn't retract ''anything'' he's previously proposed! Nor do most other political figures (e.g., Bill Clinton or George Bush). It would amount to acknowledging they made a mistake. |
||
:::::: Nor does Trump in particular feel obligated to address ''any'' embarrassing question in a straightforward manner -- or at all. |
|||
:::::: Although many publications do dwell on such matters, the most authoritative ones (BBC, WSJ, and the like) try to avoid them as being, shall we say, comparatively trifling (or perhaps even a bit juvenile for a |
:::::: Although many publications do dwell on such matters, the most authoritative ones (BBC, WSJ, and the like) try to avoid them as being, shall we say, ''comparatively'' trifling (or perhaps even a bit juvenile for a seasoned journalist to report on at any great length?). What really matters is, what is the candidate saying in his most authoritative (i.e., most fully amended) platform. Not, what did he say last year. |
||
:::::: Look at it this way: Has any high-quality source proposed that Trump was more candid or truthful last year than he is this year? |
|||
:::::: |
:::::: (Nonetheless, I think we were wise to spend some time investigating this matter.) --[[User:Dervorguilla|Dervorguilla]] ([[User talk:Dervorguilla|talk]]) 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 09:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
== "non-interventionist" == |
== "non-interventionist" == |
Revision as of 09:42, 18 July 2016
Donald Trump was a 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Friendly search suggestions
Page views for this article over the last 30 days |
---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
Lawsuit accusing him of raping 13-y.o. girl
Given the potentially contentious nature of these accusations, I'm not going to add this to the article myself, but I think there ought to be a discussion here on the talk page over whether and how the subject of this lawsuit should be covered in the article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- The lawsuit exists. But, it doesn't appear to have been picked up by reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- At least at this point, this is very fringe and poorly-sourced. It does not belong in this bio.- MrX 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing "fringe" about it. It's simply not notable at all so far and thus we keep it out per BLP.--TMCk (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is fringe in that is only being covered by QUESTIONABLE sources, outside of the mainstream.- MrX 22:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- No. There is indeed a lawsuit and the allegation is officially out there. It certainly isn't enough for inclusion tho.--TMCk (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- [ http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- We seem to all be coming to the same conclusion.:)Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Great minds think alike. :) Either that or we are really all sockpuppets of Randy in Boise... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- We seem to all be coming to the same conclusion.:)Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- [ http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- The lawsuit has now been covered by Lisa Bloom of The Huffington Post [1]. The article is marked as a blog post, though the author is a noted columnist and civil rights attorney, so it probably meets our reliability and verifiability criteria per WP:NEWSBLOG. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- An opinion piece on a blog which makes no attempt to be unbiased does not satisfy WP:BLP. WP:REDFLAG specifically states that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". When multiple mainstream media (not blogs) give coverage and analysis, then it might be fit for inclusion (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind as well). Right now nobody is talking about it, so it would be a BLP violation to put it in the article. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. It's going to get in, and there's no unbiased editorial oversight on this BLP subject. So much worse is on its way... Doc talk 07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, admins who attempt to keep this subject "neutral" will themselves be further "subjugated". So get on board before it's too late. Doc talk 07:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Further, non-blog, non-opinion coverage is now available from Uproxx (What You Should Know About The Child Rape Case Against Donald Trump), Complex (How the Child Rape Lawsuit Against Trump Could Hurt His and Clinton’s Campaigns) and Democracy Now! (Trump Faces Lawsuit Accusing Him of Raping 13-Year-Old Girl). I'm not terribly familiar with the first two sources, but the third is definitely reliable. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we are anywhere near the level of coverage that would support including something like this. All we actually know is that a civil lawsuit has been filed, and that fact has not been picked up by mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Aren't lawsuits themselves notable?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) Only if they get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Lawsuits are very common, especially against Trump. At this moment there are many, many civil suits pending involving Trump. There have been 1,300 people suing him and 1,900 people being sued by him over the past 30 years, including 70 new cases in the past year, at least 50 of which are still active. [2] These are from his real estate, construction, and other business dealings. Subcontractors saying they weren't paid, this kind of thing. None of them rate a mention here. This (suspiciously timed) lawsuit is getting a little coverage, but not currently at the level or from the sources that would make it notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Aren't lawsuits themselves notable?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we are anywhere near the level of coverage that would support including something like this. All we actually know is that a civil lawsuit has been filed, and that fact has not been picked up by mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. There is indeed a lawsuit and the allegation is officially out there. It certainly isn't enough for inclusion tho.--TMCk (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is fringe in that is only being covered by QUESTIONABLE sources, outside of the mainstream.- MrX 22:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing "fringe" about it. It's simply not notable at all so far and thus we keep it out per BLP.--TMCk (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- At least at this point, this is very fringe and poorly-sourced. It does not belong in this bio.- MrX 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tired rehash of "Remember when X raped and murdered a 13 year old girl?" Completely unreliable and unsuitable per WP:RS and WP:BLPCRIME. It would need significant coverage, on the order of Bill Cosby's allegations to be added. --DHeyward (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are you referring to this, by any chance? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I found two sources that seem to pass the test: the the International Business Times (which is generally regarded as mainstream and reliable), and Sputnik (owned by the Russian government, which is hardly biased against Trump; Putin and Trump are rather chummy, in fact). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see that as impressive enough for a BLP. If it hits a couple of major U.S. reliable news sources, it could be included with great care. It's very delicate material. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- U.S. sources? That seems really very biased. International sources should hold more weight when considering notability of something happening in the U.S., I would say, by indicating international attention is being paid to the matter. (this doesn't indicate my opinion on inclusion, just commenting on the U.S. vs. international coverage sub-thread) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- IBTimes does not agree that it "is generally regarded as mainstream", FiredanceThroughTheNight. See IBT Media, 2015 Media Kit: "Why do we exist? International Business Times aims to help the development of the global economy ... by closely following market trends and key events that are not necessarily covered by mainstream media..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, The Guardian is certainly mainstream and reliable, although whether it is biased or not is another question. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think that comment about IBTimes is playing with words. They do not say they are not mainstream media. We also have News.com.au [3], the Independent [4], the Daily Mail UK [5], the Daily Mirror [6], the Daily Beast [7], AOL [8] etc. It just seems that the US media is largely ignoring the story. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I came here to see if there was any more information about the lawsuit and was really surprised that it wasn't included already. It is very relevant and there are multiple sources, so why isn't it in? Neosiber (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unlike with criminal cases, there is no real bar to filing a civil suit. The subject of this suit is particularly sensational. And according to this source there are some valid concerns about whether the case is legitimate.CFredkin (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I came here to see if there was any more information about the lawsuit and was really surprised that it wasn't included already. It is very relevant and there are multiple sources, so why isn't it in? Neosiber (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think that comment about IBTimes is playing with words. They do not say they are not mainstream media. We also have News.com.au [3], the Independent [4], the Daily Mail UK [5], the Daily Mirror [6], the Daily Beast [7], AOL [8] etc. It just seems that the US media is largely ignoring the story. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposal
I would like to gauge consensus for adding "Trump is widely regarded as populist." to the lead.- MrX 18:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- A few sources
"It’s not supposed to hail from Brooklyn or Queens, never mind Burlington, Vermont, or midtown Manhattan. But that’s where the two reigning populists [Trump and Sanders] of the 2016 cycle call home.¶ You could say that Donald Trump, the son of a rich real-estate developer in Queens, was always a populist at heart."
— National review
"Trump resembles some of the great populists of yesteryear."
— National review
"Donald Trump’s campaign has been constantly referred to as a populist insurgency within the Republican Party, consisting as it does of an anti-Washington message designed to stoke working-class anxieties. "
— Slate
"They (trump and Sanders] are starting more conventional rivals by surging in the polls thanks to two very different strains of a classical American political movement: populism"
— NBC - Meet the Press
"Populism, especially as it manifests itself in the pushback against globalization, immigration and the political elites, can be found on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, many see the American version of it in the likes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump."
— CNBC
"This is where the populism of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump overlap. Both ran on very similar claims that the elite are in it for themselves."
— National Review
"With Donald Trump as the presumptive presidential nominee, we are witnessing a populist hijacking of one of the United States’ great political parties."
— Washington Post
"The irony about Trump’s supposed “populist” ascendancy is, of course, that he is deeply unpopular, the least popular candidate of either of the major U.S. political parties on record."
— Newsweek
"A key part of Trump's strategy is to ensure high turnout of white, working class Republican voters. But he's also looking to capture a segment of the Democratic base with his populist economic message."
— CNN
" His populism cuts across party lines like few others before him. Like his fans, Trump is indifferent to the issues of sexual orientation that animate the declining religious right, even to the point of defending Planned Parenthood. Trump’s platform combines positions that are shared by many populists but are anathema to movement conservatives—a defense of Social Security, a guarantee of universal health care, economic nationalist trade policies."
— Politico
"Today, Donald Trump's campaign benefits from a similar populist appeal to beleaguered, white, blue-collar voters -- his key constituency."
— CBS News
"Certains «populistes» comme Trump ou Johnson sont millionnaires.¶ Boris Johnson et Beppe Grillo, Marine Le Pen et Donald Trump: tous sont qualifiés de populistes."
— Le Figaro
"Surtout, Sanders ne peut être considéré comme un populiste, même si ses propositions sont radicales à l’aune des critères de la politique américaine. Trump, lui, au contraire, est un populiste."
— Le Monde
"Yet there are much broader meanings in use that better fit Mr Trump. Michael Kazin, author of “The Populist Persuasion”, comes close when he describes populism as “a language whose speakers conceive of ordinary people as a noble assemblage not bounded narrowly by class, view their elite opponents as self-serving and undemocratic, and seek to mobilize the former against the latter”."
— The Economist
"In his political style, there is hardly any ambiguity: Trump is as populist as it gets."
— New York
"Populism is a stance and a rhetoric more than an ideology or a set of positions. It speaks of a battle of good against evil, demanding simple answers to difficult problems. (Trump: “Trade? We’re gonna fix it. Health care? We’re gonna fix it.”)"
— The New Yorker
"But it wasn't until Donald Trump came along that the populist base of the Republican Party found the right mouthpiece for all its grievances."
— NPR
"Paradoxically, the term most often used to describe Trump, both in the U.S. and abroad, is possibly the most problematic: populism."
— The Washington Post
"What if Trump turns up the volume on a populist message while the Democrats run a more cautious campaign?"
— The Nation
"Trump may yet turn out to be a fairly conventional American populist when it comes to his policy views, but he’s already proved revolutionary in his ability to create—and then manipulate—the media platforms that enable his politics."
— Politico
- Poll
- Support. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Possible alternate wording: "Trump is generally regarded as a populist"?--MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I agree with the comments of Iselilja below.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC) - Support. -- Hard to argue with that much documentation. Objective3000 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC
- Support per the abundance of diverse sources.- MrX 18:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. The term "right-wing populist" is to be inferred from sources that don't directly use that specific term, per SYNTH. That's how we source things here. Doc talk 02:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support —I would favour "right-wing populist", but this is a good first step. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I don't think anybody really disputes that he is, in fact, a populist, and if they do then the wide variety of high quality sources seem to answer that definitively. The wording in question seems fine as well. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Partly oppose I will note that most of the sources are from political commentators, and not from political scientists. The one source (Washington Post) that actually is from a political scientist, Cas Mudde, a leading scholar on right wing populism explicitly says Trump is not a populist "Trump himself doesn’t hold a populist radical right ideology". For more on Cas Mudde's view:The Power of Populism? Not Really! and As American as Trump. Though I agree that most polical commentators refer to him as a populist. The sentence ought to read: Trump is regarded by most political commentators as a populist, because MrX's proposal begs the question "regarded [by whom?]. I also believe this sentence should be inserted in the third paragraph in the lede, which deals with his political positions, and not in the first paragraph. Ideally we should insert something about Trump being an nontraditional politician that doesn't fit neatly into established categories in political science. Iselilja (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose As MelanieN pointed out, the sources show Trump has a populist campaign style, rather than being an actual populist. I would also point out that the term can have different meanings, so stating Trump is a populist without explaining what is meant would be unclear. TFD (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, of course. Plenty of sourcing for the term, plenty of sourcing for "right-wing" too. And let's remind ourselves that "populist" really isn't a bad word. Calling Donald Trump a populist is not like calling Hillary Clinton a liberal, which is a very loaded word (unlike "progressive"). Anyway, whether you want to call him a populist or whether you want to say that his political persona is that of a populist (even if one who doesn't really invoke "the people" as much as he invokes himself) is really not so important; and I do agree that the third (political) paragraph is a good place. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Many reliable sources (in particular, sources that aren't opinion pieces) do clearly state that Trump's a populist. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. As this source tells, "Trump isn't a populist but a demagogue. The difference being that a populist seeks political power to work for the good of the average citizen. A demagogue claims the same motivation, but is truly only interested in aggrandizing himself.". My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Extended comments
|
---|
|
- Discussion
If I can find at least as much documentation referring to Hillary as a "liberal" will all the supporters of this proposal support adding that term to the lede of her bio?CFredkin (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a proposal to make at her article, not this one. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. And good luck with it. A quick search finds just as many places arguing that she is not liberal (or progressive as per the more current term) as that she is. There is nowhere near the unanimity that there is for Trump being a populist - or for that matter, for Elizabeth Warren being a liberal. (Our article calls her progressive.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- The sources I believe you're referring to seem to debate whether Clinton is liberal enough. The section on her Political Positions in her bio repeatedly refers to her as liberal. Currently the ledes for the bios for both candidates discuss their positions on key issues. If we're going to elevate political labels as important enough to include in Trump's bio, why not in Clinton's?CFredkin (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- To repeat: Sounds like a proposal to make at her article, not this one. Or are you trying to make some kind of backhanded comment about this article? Are you trying to say we should NOT include the term "populist" in the lede here, because there is not a comparable description in the lede of the Clinton article? If so, please say so directly in the spirit of this "poll". If not, please take this suggestion to the Clinton talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- The point I'm trying to make (and the reason that I haven't weighed in officially on this proposal) is that I think a fair argument can be made either for or against the inclusion of well-sourced, widely-used labels in the lede for political candidates. But I feel strongly that it is only fair for the same standard to be applied in both articles for candidates for the same office, and I am quite certain that an equally strong argument can be made that the label "liberal" can be applied to Hillary (based on the points I made above). Also, I am anticipating that if this proposal is approved and I then make the same proposal on the Talk page for Hillary's bio, the scrum of very dedicated editors who guard that page will reject it out of hand. So I think it's fair to ask whether someone who weighs in in support of this proposal would be willing to support the same proposal on Hillary's bio.CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there is no such Wikipedia standard, so appealing to it is futile. If you wish, you can propose a new guideline, or build consensus for changing the style manual, or start a WikiProject, but for now these content discussions are independent of each other. For my part, if you can quote at least 15 reliable sources, from a least two countries, including some left-leaning sources, that plainly describe Hillary as liberal, then I will support such a proposal with gusto.- MrX 21:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- The point I'm trying to make (and the reason that I haven't weighed in officially on this proposal) is that I think a fair argument can be made either for or against the inclusion of well-sourced, widely-used labels in the lede for political candidates. But I feel strongly that it is only fair for the same standard to be applied in both articles for candidates for the same office, and I am quite certain that an equally strong argument can be made that the label "liberal" can be applied to Hillary (based on the points I made above). Also, I am anticipating that if this proposal is approved and I then make the same proposal on the Talk page for Hillary's bio, the scrum of very dedicated editors who guard that page will reject it out of hand. So I think it's fair to ask whether someone who weighs in in support of this proposal would be willing to support the same proposal on Hillary's bio.CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- To repeat: Sounds like a proposal to make at her article, not this one. Or are you trying to make some kind of backhanded comment about this article? Are you trying to say we should NOT include the term "populist" in the lede here, because there is not a comparable description in the lede of the Clinton article? If so, please say so directly in the spirit of this "poll". If not, please take this suggestion to the Clinton talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- The sources I believe you're referring to seem to debate whether Clinton is liberal enough. The section on her Political Positions in her bio repeatedly refers to her as liberal. Currently the ledes for the bios for both candidates discuss their positions on key issues. If we're going to elevate political labels as important enough to include in Trump's bio, why not in Clinton's?CFredkin (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. And good luck with it. A quick search finds just as many places arguing that she is not liberal (or progressive as per the more current term) as that she is. There is nowhere near the unanimity that there is for Trump being a populist - or for that matter, for Elizabeth Warren being a liberal. (Our article calls her progressive.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- It really *should* be "right wing populist".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is source currently used on this page, and it does describes Trump as a right-wing populist. If not exact wording, that is what this source actually tells. This is fair summary. If anyone wants to use exact wording, that would be a "post-fascist populist". Is it better? I think "right-wing" is actually more neutral and consistent with our BLP policy. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Using your logic, the existence of a reliable source calling Hillary "corrupt" would justify the inclusion of a statement in her bio calling her "unethical" because it doesn't sound as bad. Why don't you make that argument on her article and see what kind of reception you get.CFredkin (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a cross post of a comment I made at the edit warring notice board. It seems relevant -- One google search and about five minutes lead me to the following articles, all of which support the description of Mr. Trump as a "right-wing populist": [9], [10], [11], and notably [12] the third paragraph of which begins: "Mr Trump is a rightwing populist." Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, the argument that he is not described in this way seems hard to sustain. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- The RS list stating that he is running as a populist is impressive. I personally think it is obvious that he is running as a right-wing populist. But, this would require more documentation considering his constantly shifting and contradictory positions. Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a cross post of a comment I made at the edit warring notice board. It seems relevant -- One google search and about five minutes lead me to the following articles, all of which support the description of Mr. Trump as a "right-wing populist": [9], [10], [11], and notably [12] the third paragraph of which begins: "Mr Trump is a rightwing populist." Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, the argument that he is not described in this way seems hard to sustain. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Using your logic, the existence of a reliable source calling Hillary "corrupt" would justify the inclusion of a statement in her bio calling her "unethical" because it doesn't sound as bad. Why don't you make that argument on her article and see what kind of reception you get.CFredkin (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is source currently used on this page, and it does describes Trump as a right-wing populist. If not exact wording, that is what this source actually tells. This is fair summary. If anyone wants to use exact wording, that would be a "post-fascist populist". Is it better? I think "right-wing" is actually more neutral and consistent with our BLP policy. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that this discussion starting with VolunteerMarek's post should really be in the section above. I'm not sure if an admin is required to make that move....CFredkin (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a very, very rigged area. Although it's "claimed" that consensus must be achieved before making any contentious edits, that is absolutely ignored. It's now been brought to my attention that consensus must be achieved before removing contentious BLP material that never had consensus in the first place[13]. So CON, NPOV, NOR and BLP are all reimagined when it comes to Trump. Congratulations. Doc talk 01:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you really believe that, then you should run, not walk, to WP:ARCA and seek clarification or amendment.- MrX 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- You gotta be kidding me. The pink banner that shows up at the top of the article when editing it is ignored. Poorly sourced, contentious material in a BLP is actually allowed to stand. Removing that material is prohibited. Do you need some more people to explain it to you? Doc talk 03:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- MrX is right, Doc. As are you. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, we remove (at once) any interpretation that the source itself doesn't clearly state. And we likewise remove any information that's sourced to an opinion piece (see WP:NEWSBLOG) or otherwise poorly sourced. (Or at least we're supposed to.)
Sorry.--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 07:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)- Sorry for you that while in theory that is what is supposed to happen, it is not happening here. This[14] remains in the article. It is very poorly sourced. Take a minute and look at it, then get back to me. Doc talk 05:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out that the information is poorly sourced, Doc. I'm accordingly removing it per WP:BLPREMOVE (and WP:NEWSBLOG). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for removing it! Per policy! Now, I... probably should have mentioned that BLP policy has been a bit "muddied" recently regarding this area. I was threatened with a block, by the lord of this domain, were I to remove the exact same thing you did for the exact same reasons. I do hope that: a)You do not get blocked, and b) the poorly-sourced content is not restored for a third time without any attempt at achieving any sort of consensus, again. Cheers! :) Doc talk 07:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for you that while in theory that is what is supposed to happen, it is not happening here. This[14] remains in the article. It is very poorly sourced. Take a minute and look at it, then get back to me. Doc talk 05:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- MrX is right, Doc. As are you. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, we remove (at once) any interpretation that the source itself doesn't clearly state. And we likewise remove any information that's sourced to an opinion piece (see WP:NEWSBLOG) or otherwise poorly sourced. (Or at least we're supposed to.)
- You gotta be kidding me. The pink banner that shows up at the top of the article when editing it is ignored. Poorly sourced, contentious material in a BLP is actually allowed to stand. Removing that material is prohibited. Do you need some more people to explain it to you? Doc talk 03:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you really believe that, then you should run, not walk, to WP:ARCA and seek clarification or amendment.- MrX 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, leading political scientist on right wing populism Cas Mudde does not regard Trump as a populist (but does regard him as right wing based on holding nativist and authoritarian views). I didn't have time to read through all the sources above, but are any of those sources political scientists? I also want to quote a bit from one of Mudde's articles:
- "Trump, despite ample assertions to the contrary, is not a populist. Like European counterparts, he argues that “the elite” are uniformly corrupt. But unlike European politicians, he does not exalt the virtues of “the people.” Trump is not the Vox Populi (voice of The People) but the Vox Donaldus (voice of The Donald). Rather than claiming to offer common-sense solutions or follow the will of the people, Trump promises to make “better deals” because he knows “the art of the deal.” As he declared when he formed his 2016 exploratory committee, “I am the only one who can make America truly great again!”" (My bolding).
- I would like to have Mudde's view briefly included in the body of the article because he is a leading scholar on right wing populism. Whether he represents a majority or minority view among political scientists (as opposed to journalists), I don't know, but even if minority view, it's a significant minority view. Iselilja (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, The Washington Post opinion piece by Finchelstein and Piccato does not describe Trump as a "right-wing populist," it describes him as a "populist" and notes that he may be "showing us the future of U.S. right-wing politics." RW populism is a specfic ideology which is to the right of the traditional Right, in this case the Republican Party, and the authors do not say that. In fact they group Trump closest with Burlesconi and Hugo Chavez, neither of whom were right-wing populists. (Chavez was not even right-wing.)
- Also, we do not know the degree of acceptance of their view or that of Mudde. What we do know is that Trump uses a populist campaign style, which btw is a constant feature in the U.S. since the American Revolution and Jeffersonian Democracy.
- TFD (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mudde does keep getting advertised as a "leading political scientist" or "leading scholar" or whatever. But he seems to keep getting so advertised on WP itself more than elsewhere. Just sayin'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cas Mudde is probably the leading expert on the classification of extreme right political movements in the post Second World War era. Of course that does not make him infallible, but it does elevate his opinion over those of non-expert commentators. TFD (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do not agree that Mudde is a "leading expert on the classification of extreme right political movements", TFD. See, for example, Cas Mudde entry: "This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources." --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Populist radical right parties in Europe (1997) has 1,353 cites shown in Google scholar,[15] it was hailed as "a benchmark for future work on the radical right."[file:///C:/Users/Nick/Downloads/fulltext_stamped.pdf]b The reviewer particularly noted, "One of the main strengths of the book is the conceptualization and classification of the radical right." The reviewer saw that as a major contribution. Whether or not anyone bothers to write a Wikipedia article about him or how well it is prepared is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do not agree that Mudde is a "leading expert on the classification of extreme right political movements", TFD. See, for example, Cas Mudde entry: "This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources." --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cas Mudde is probably the leading expert on the classification of extreme right political movements in the post Second World War era. Of course that does not make him infallible, but it does elevate his opinion over those of non-expert commentators. TFD (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Trump signature size is inappropriately minuscule
Trump's sig size in the infobox is minuscule, and consequently looks silly or wrong. I increased it a moderate amount [16] (it could even go bigger than I made it per the space available for it, probably should), and was reverted by user Dervorguilla with rationale "so man’s signature not substantially taller than similar woman’s signature (compare with, e.g., Hillary Clinton)
" [17]. That argument is absurd (a "man versus woman" issue, huh?!). It is also comparing apples to oranges: the two articles have different template infoboxes, Clinton's signature is presented in-line by its infobox template, Trump's signature is presented by its infobox template not in-line, but solo at the infobox bottom, where there is ample more space. (Thus if you artificially equate the two, you end up with Clinton's sig size looking appropriate size for the manner her infobox presents it [a line item], and Trump's sig size looking inappropriately puny for the manner his infobox presents it [solo at infobox bottom].)
Don't minisculize Trump's sig with a faulty bogus apples-oranges logic--do what's appropriate for each case (Clinton's sig, as line item, would appear inappropriate if blown up in size; Trump's sig, assigned to the infobox bottom space, appears inappropriately minuscule when shrunk to somehow "equal" Clinton's sig size). No reader is going to notice or care or compare sig sizes between different articles, they will only notice when a sig size doesn't appropriately fill/occupy the space assigned to it. (Wow, I think all of this is obvious, I'm dying of boredom stating the obvious.) IHTS (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns. Peace! — JFG talk 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is it related to the size of his hands?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, JFG. (I think .5 is still small for the available space, but at least it's better.) IHTS (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- According to IHTS, "no reader is going to notice ... or compare sig sizes between different articles...". But cf. Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument", 508-09. "Begging the question -- that is, assuming as true the very claim that's disputed -- is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality." And a claim can be made that at least some readers are going to notice the disparity.
- No fallacy, no circular logic. (If you assume that a typical reader goes to an article for its content, they why oh why would "the disparity" occur or pop out to them, when Hillary's sig appropriately fits its available space, and Trump's sig appropriately fits its available space? I can't imagine that happening even once for typical/casual reader. If the fallacy is assuming all readers are typical/casual, I didn't make that assumption.) IHTS (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- As pointed out by IHTS, however, a claim can be made that at least some readers are going to notice when a sig doesn't fit its assigned space. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think most if not all readers would notice the vacuum of unused space. (Things like that are instinctive, basic psychology/brain evolution. Noticing things out of place/ill-fitting helped our survival.) IHTS (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Apt and well-phrased, IHTS. Technically, the disruption of a regular pattern triggers a P wave with a 75 ms delay (or something along those lines).
- Try scrolling down the infobox using the "Mobile sidebar preview" gadget. Do you notice any pattern disruptions that don't appear in the normal view? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thx (was unaware of that gadget, and I don't have iPhone, so looks useful). It came up okay, but I'm not sure what you're driving at. (There was less text per line re infobox text lines compared to normal view, and the sig looks the same in its space as normal view [although as mentioned above it is still too small for available space IMO].) BTW, "pattern disruption" is a different thing from what I've been talking about (filling available space), I never referred to "patterns" at all here. (Here's a bad analogy. If we are intelligent apes "walking the Earth" and "gettin' into adventures", and saw a lake with lillypads distributed on the surface, we wouldn't notice anything special about one lilly pad in the center of the lake. But even if we never saw that lake before, if we came across a different lake with only a single lilly pad in the center of it, it would catch attention as "odd" and even probably spur investigation of it ["What's it doing there?"]. Whereas if on the way home to our cave we came across a deep large-screen-TV-sized puddle with a single lilly pad in the center, we'd just step on it or maybe pick it and eat it, without anything similarly striking us as "odd". Home Sweet Cave.) (talk)
- Here is how Trump feels about your precious lilypads, IHTS. I Saw Eagle Flying Low over Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thx (was unaware of that gadget, and I don't have iPhone, so looks useful). It came up okay, but I'm not sure what you're driving at. (There was less text per line re infobox text lines compared to normal view, and the sig looks the same in its space as normal view [although as mentioned above it is still too small for available space IMO].) BTW, "pattern disruption" is a different thing from what I've been talking about (filling available space), I never referred to "patterns" at all here. (Here's a bad analogy. If we are intelligent apes "walking the Earth" and "gettin' into adventures", and saw a lake with lillypads distributed on the surface, we wouldn't notice anything special about one lilly pad in the center of the lake. But even if we never saw that lake before, if we came across a different lake with only a single lilly pad in the center of it, it would catch attention as "odd" and even probably spur investigation of it ["What's it doing there?"]. Whereas if on the way home to our cave we came across a deep large-screen-TV-sized puddle with a single lilly pad in the center, we'd just step on it or maybe pick it and eat it, without anything similarly striking us as "odd". Home Sweet Cave.) (talk)
- I think most if not all readers would notice the vacuum of unused space. (Things like that are instinctive, basic psychology/brain evolution. Noticing things out of place/ill-fitting helped our survival.) IHTS (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- The lilly pads weren't "precious", only objects in an analogy. (They might be nutritious however, if the apes were omnivores.) The solution to compromise w/ you is really Randy-inappropriate; the same as if someone told me I can't fill up the gas tank in my Toyota, 'cause it has more capacity than a woman's Volkswagon at the other pump.) IHTS (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're right in part, IHTS. My apologies for getting silly with the second-wave feminist nonsense (which I thoroughly rebut at Feminism#Jurisprudence). However, the solution was not technically a "compromise" between two editors - for you'd proven that my original claim was in error.
- The question then became, what image size does fit best? Should we focus on the horizontal dimension or the vertical dimension?
- Only if the vertical is important could an argument be made that current size (as set by JFG) is adequate. I could make a reasonable claim that it's a bit too high, based on the average em-height of signatures in similar articles. So perhaps we could understand upright=0.5 as a geometric compromise between vertical and horizontal fit, rather than a subjective compromise between two editors. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, I think comparing to "similar articles" is off-point - the space available each article infobox provides s/ be the guide. For a retangular box containing this sig, width expands faster (more units) per increase in height. So IMO height greater than .5 is better (because more width is better). IHTS (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- What if the lilypad was a Lotus, and it was driven by a woman?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wielding a minigun plugged into the lighter socket... --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- What if the lilypad was a Lotus, and it was driven by a woman?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, I think comparing to "similar articles" is off-point - the space available each article infobox provides s/ be the guide. For a retangular box containing this sig, width expands faster (more units) per increase in height. So IMO height greater than .5 is better (because more width is better). IHTS (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- The lilly pads weren't "precious", only objects in an analogy. (They might be nutritious however, if the apes were omnivores.) The solution to compromise w/ you is really Randy-inappropriate; the same as if someone told me I can't fill up the gas tank in my Toyota, 'cause it has more capacity than a woman's Volkswagon at the other pump.) IHTS (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken, IHTS. But if we apply the "space available" metric alone, Li Bai's signature would need to be nearly five times taller than María del Carmen González-Valerio's.
- Perhaps we should compare to similar articles with similar signature-character counts? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- There are no sigs at either article. (Li Bia img is of an artwork, not a sig.) I recommend that a problem exist, before you attempt to find solution. And you seem permanently stuck on making comparisons. (If you crop a photo, you'll go wrong by chasing other similar photos to compare. Deal w/ what is in front of you.) IHTS (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Will do, IHTS. You mentioned in particular, "I think most if not all readers would notice the vacuum of unused space." With my Firefox/PC browser magnification set at 100%, the unused space around the signature looks about the same as the average unused space around the other Infobox elements.
But to me as a reader, the unused space on a generic HTML document is of trifling importance, because I think of it as varying with device, platform, and magnification. What I notice instead here is the signature height. I see it as overly tall, because it draws my attention away from the data in the preceding elements (which are more helpful to me personally and, most likely, to the average WP reader). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're still *comparing*! Except now, instead of to other similar articles, you're comparing white space surrounding the sig to white space surrounding the infobox line items. It's still an apples-to-oranges compare; the elements are different in kind and available space. Regarding platforms, I'm assuming the relative amount of white space to entire available space remains the same between platforms. Regarding sig size detracting your attention from the infobox line items, that's a non-starter, since the sig is an entirely different construct than the line items (it's a weird or wild artistic shape/construct), that alone will guarantee drawing attention differently from the uniform text line items, regardless what vertical size the sig assumes - it will *always* stand out because it is totally unlike the other items). p.s. This has become tedious. I won't be responding further unless other editors have problems too, other than you. IHTS (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the sig size to more appropriately fill the available space (the approx long-standing size until this edit containing rationale "
compare with Hillary Clinton's signature: male competitor's signature taller than female's, by 1.5:1
" already discussed above). There is no difference between the judgment involved, from cropping a photo: Each person's sig is like their own little "work of art"; the available space in this infobox is like the "canvas" for said work. Dervorguilla, you seem to be the only editor generating ongoing objections to this. As with the gender-based argument, I don't see all your "comparison" arguments making much sense, or refuting what I've described & explained. Your displeasure has been based on considerations of things outside of the thing (thing + its space) itself. That is not a valid way to look at presenting/displaying a person's sig. A person's sig is not "listed information". It is more like an expression of the subject's personality/persona. IHTS (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- "A person's sig ... is more like an expression of the subject's personality/persona." Except that it isn't, IHTS. Graphology -- the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting -- purports to be able to evaluate personality characteristics but is generally considered a pseudoscience. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Give me a break. It's the person's individual expression (unique to themselves). That's why I wrote "expression of their persona". And that's why a sig is used as identity confirmation for a person, just like a thumbprint is. It's their individual identification "stamp". And who said anything about "evaluat[ing] personality". Not me. (Nitpick some more??? I do think your objective now is to continue this thread without end, grind me down. This thread should have been 1/4 its size, at most. Plus you changed the long-standing sig size, I essentially restored it. It was you who needed to open this thread per WP:BRD, not me.) IHTS (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- "A person's sig ... is more like an expression of the subject's personality/persona." Except that it isn't, IHTS. Graphology -- the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting -- purports to be able to evaluate personality characteristics but is generally considered a pseudoscience. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Putting arguments in my mouth, suggesting I'm pushing pseudoscience, that I've engaged in fallacy/circular logic, picking on every possible angle to question what is essentially a simple cropping issue for what is essentially an artwork file (subject's unique signature), borders on personal attacks and Talk page disruption. With your original absurd gender-based rationale, and posting link to a mocking fantasy artwork of the subject, and sarcastic mocking of me ("
Here is how Trump feels about your precious lilypads"
), no wonder I've lost my patience with you. IHTS (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Putting arguments in my mouth, suggesting I'm pushing pseudoscience, that I've engaged in fallacy/circular logic, picking on every possible angle to question what is essentially a simple cropping issue for what is essentially an artwork file (subject's unique signature), borders on personal attacks and Talk page disruption. With your original absurd gender-based rationale, and posting link to a mocking fantasy artwork of the subject, and sarcastic mocking of me ("
- To address your most telling concerns here, IHTS:
- ...You changed the long-standing sig size, I essentially restored it. It was you who needed to open this thread per WP:BRD...
- Good point about the "long-standing" sig size. Yes, it's been nearly seven years since sysop Connormah added the image, at upright=0.7. And it stayed that size till I meddled with it.
- But the binding policy here (as cited at BRD) is actually WP:CON: "Consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." And JFG clearly implemented Consensus policy at rev 729145516, explaining, "I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns".
- To address your most telling concerns here, IHTS:
- ...Who said anything about "evaluat[ing] personality". Not me.
- I may indeed have misunderstood the point of your argument that the signature "is more like an expression of the subject's personality..." The language about "evaluating personality" is found at Graphology: "the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting [for the purpose of] evaluating personality characteristics [or the like]." (Thence also my claim that such analysis "is generally considered a pseudoscience".)
- Putting arguments in my mouth, suggesting I'm pushing pseudoscience [or] that I've engaged in fallacy/circular logic, [and] picking on every possible angle to question what is essentially a simple cropping issue ... borders on personal attacks and Talk page disruption.
- No; rather, you and I have been giving each other some very good reasons for seeing one sig size as better than another. And I feel that I've come to understand your reasons for disagreeing with me (and with JFG).
- With your original absurd gender-based rationale, and posting link to a mocking fantasy artwork of the subject, and sarcastic mocking of me ... no wonder I've lost my patience with you.
- I also feel that I've been complying with WP:INDCRIT and that you (easily) understood my responses to your comments.
- Here are 3 diffs that illustrate why I have trouble believing your claim that I've caused you to lose patience by linking to the "mocking" artwork and so forth.
- 1. Your own apparently mocking reply ("No, the size of your head.") to Jack Upland's mocking reply to JFG's comment.
- 2. Your apparently light-hearted reply ("Depends of course how good-looking she is.") to my second light-hearted comment that mentions the artwork.
- 3. Your unacknowledged removal of your two replies. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Could we solve all this by getting Donald to write with a crayon?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your off-topic graphic mocked the BLP subject, and your associated comment mocked me as editor. I deleted my own off-topic posts, but in no sense were they mocking of you or any other editor, as yours were. And I listed reasons beyond your off-topic mocking posts for losing patience with you. (You seem to dwell on the trivial and off-topic. Duh I wonder why.) ¶ A "compromise" sig size isn't logically appropriate, since you've never offered or stuck with any rationale for shrinking the long-standing size (which is also the template:Infobox person default size for signature_size parm, 150px), and your rationale for shrinking the size and reverting me based on sexual equality was so absurd: "
male competitor's signature taller than female's
". You don't have any consensus to reduce the long-standing sig size. And no one contributing to the thread has objected to the long-standing sig size. (Am restoring on that basis. No doubt you will continue your BS discussion techniques and out-of-policy reverting, however. You seem pleased to extend this thread and reverting until 6,000 years.) IHTS (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your off-topic graphic mocked the BLP subject, and your associated comment mocked me as editor. I deleted my own off-topic posts, but in no sense were they mocking of you or any other editor, as yours were. And I listed reasons beyond your off-topic mocking posts for losing patience with you. (You seem to dwell on the trivial and off-topic. Duh I wonder why.) ¶ A "compromise" sig size isn't logically appropriate, since you've never offered or stuck with any rationale for shrinking the long-standing size (which is also the template:Infobox person default size for signature_size parm, 150px), and your rationale for shrinking the size and reverting me based on sexual equality was so absurd: "
- You're making the claim that the off-topic posts you deleted weren't mocking other editors, IHTS.
- I deleted my own off-topic posts, but in no sense were they mocking of you or any other editor...
- Yet your "off-topic post" of 10 July 2016 seems to be personally mocking Jack Upland:
- I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns. Peace! — JFG 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is it related to the size of his hands?--Jack Upland 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, the size of your head. IHTS 07:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is it related to the size of his hands?--Jack Upland 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns. Peace! — JFG 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- And contrary to WP:REDACT, you've neglected to indicate that two days later you deleted the post and also a second post, to which I'd already replied. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Off-topic, and wrong. (Upland's post was disruptive snark and deserved a putdown. Your mocking of me was unprompted & undeserved. Your mocking of Trump also did/does not belong here.) I'm having trouble finding anything substantive contributed by you in this thread. Yet you will probably continue extending it. IHTS (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're making the claim that the off-topic posts you deleted weren't mocking other editors, IHTS.
- The word, by the way, is minuscule. Not miniscule. Look it up. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- My edit summary for reducing the sig size was,That sig was too big. Now we need someone who knows how to move the label, "Signature," over to the left of the infobox. This should look like the sig in Hillary Clinton's infobox. IHTS wrote in the edit summary restoring the larger signature, no, read the Talk page; the infobox at Hillary Clinton is a different template, providing a different available space; your "too big" compare on that basis is apples-and-oranges). I did look over this long discussion before changing it. My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox, i.e., in the context of this page. My remark that it should look like Clinton's meant it should look balanced in relation to the rest of the infobox like hers does.
- I think the real problem is the fact that the word "Signature" is center-aligned. That's what creates so much white space that IHTS feels should be filled. I feel filling that space makes the sig oversized in the context of the page.
- CONCRETE SUGGESTION for improvement of article and end of debate: change the template so the space for the sig is smaller.
- Compare (yes, compare!) how Trump's sig is more conspicuous on the page that John Hancock's. Doesn't look right; doesn't make sense; can't find precedent or reason to make it so conspicuous. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. (The two infobox templates are different and provide different available spaces.) Whether that's a problem or not, I doubt this is the proper venue to discuss it. Oh and I did not "restore the larger signature"; the size was blown up to incredible size due to markup error, I simply corrected my earlier markup error. IHTS (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- YoPienso's claim seems legitimate, IHTS. He's saying that your edit "restores the larger signature". Most people here would likely understand "larger" as meaning the larger of the two things that were the subjects of the preceding discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, go look at my diffs at the WP:EWN incident you opened. (Actually click on them, and look at the article effects.) And p.s., there is obviously a disconnect between the template:Infobox person doc, and the actual default siz size which has been long-lasting in this article, and against which you've never presented a single cogent argument why something is wrong with. IHTS (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- YoPienso's claim seems legitimate, IHTS. He's saying that your edit "restores the larger signature". Most people here would likely understand "larger" as meaning the larger of the two things that were the subjects of the preceding discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. (The two infobox templates are different and provide different available spaces.) Whether that's a problem or not, I doubt this is the proper venue to discuss it. Oh and I did not "restore the larger signature"; the size was blown up to incredible size due to markup error, I simply corrected my earlier markup error. IHTS (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I reviewed the relevant diffs before I made the report, IHTS. And I think YoPienso's comment speaks for itself. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
2012 birther campaign in lead section
I'm surprised there's no mention of 2012 birther campaign / flirtation with the Republican presidential primary in the lead section. This subject received enormous amounts of attention from the press at the time and afterwards and has been credited as laying the groundwork for his 2016 candidacy (e.g. here). I'd think this is more biographically significant than his short-lived candidacy for the Reform Party nomination in 2000, which gets a sentence. {I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Religion
Why does Obama get to have a stated religion in his infobox, but Trump doesn't get to?ShadowDragon343 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes. clpo13(talk) 21:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Religion is being removed from the infobox of all politicians who don't meet the following requirements:
Extended content
|
---|
Here are Wikipedia's requirements for listing a religion in the infobox or categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
|
Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands
Are there any editors who are interested in helping to expand the Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You think that's "encyclopedic"? Just a weak attempt at notability. Doc talk 09:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, Tiny Hands redirects here. Is that a BLPVIO? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion? Yes. Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Order of Politics section
User:ThiefOfBagdad: This recent change to the Politics section seemed a bit confusing to me. It had a 2000 Campaign section following an Involvement in Politics Prior to 2015 section. I realize the campaigns were grouped together separately from the Involvement section, but it still seemed confusing to me when I saw it.CFredkin (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
BLP violation in lede
This edit restored content which is no longer accurate (and replaced content which is accurate). The body of the article currently states:
Trump later modified his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies.[1] Trump has said that the ban would be lifted once the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.[2]
Also, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, the content should NOT have been restored unless/until there was consensus to do so in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Detrow, Scott. Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism', NPR (June 13, 2016): "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."
- ^ Ryan Teague Beckwith (2016-06-13). "Read Donald Trump's Speech on the Orlando Shooting". Time.com. Retrieved 2016-07-12.
- Huh? In what POSSIBLE sense is this a BLP violation? Let's not throw that accusation around unless it has some basis in reality. As for the possible wording, we have two choices at the moment: "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." (the current wording) and "a proposal to temporarily ban immigration to the United States from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States, until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists."(the previous and your preferred wording). I don't see any way that we can gloss over his frequently repeated insistence on banning Muslims, even if he did later modify it by saying "from terrorist countries". (In fact when he first said it he even said the ban would apply to American citizens who were Muslim, although he quickly retracted that.) And his ban was never just on "immigration", it was on entering the country at all - as tourists, as foreign dignitaries, students, whatever. The "terrorist countries" comment in June did not revoke the Muslim ban, it expanded on it, as per the NPR source: "Responding to the Orlando shootings in a New Hampshire speech Monday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump used the appearance to expand on his previous call to temporarily ban all Muslims from immigrating to the United States." The fact that he specified "from terrorist countries" did not in any way erase his previous and never-retracted ban on "Muslims". The whole history - ban and expansion - is spelled out in the text. If you think the modification is so important it has to go in the lede, how about something like this: "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims, particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism, from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Melanie basically covers it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That sentence in the lede begins with "His platform includes...." It's intended to reflect his current positions. The following reliable sources all indicate that he changed his stance from temporarily banning Muslims to temporarily banning people from countries with a history of terrorist activity:
Trump Shifts Muslim Ban to Focus on Only 'Terrorist' Nations (ABC News)
Donald Trump's shifting positions on Muslim ban (CNN)
Did Donald Trump just soften his Muslim ban proposal? (CSM
Has Donald Trump lifted his Muslim ban? (CBS News)
Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism' (The Hill)CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, the edit I referenced is a BLP violation because WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE indicates that:
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
This was clearly not adhered to in this case.CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Every one of those citations makes it clear that 1) he is still talking about MUSLIMS, particularly those from terrorist countries - not Christians or Jews or atheists from those countries, just Muslims; and 2) he has not withdrawn his proposed ban on all Muslims; the closest he has come was a comment that a Scottish Muslim "wouldn't bother me". His spokespeople, trying to explain what he said, were all over the map, ranging from "it's about Muslims from countries that support terrorism" to "nothing has changed." Trump himself, as recently as June 25, "declined to answer directly in an interview with CNN whether his ban would extend to all foreign Muslims."[18] So there's really no evidence that he has withdrawn his repeated call for a "shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." At most, he recently said that his ban is not ironclad and that people coming from "terror countries" would be "even more severely vetted". So as I proposed above, we could say "particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism". But there is no way we can say or imply that he has withdrawn his platform to ban Muslims from entering the country. The sources, and Trump himself, simply do not support that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with MelanieN and Volunteer Marek on this point. The lead is a summary — it is not meant to reflect ever single variation in phrasing. As VM notes, Trump has never retracted his previous proposed "ban on Muslims." Neutralitytalk 22:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Excerpts from sources provided above:
Donald Trump said today it "wouldn't bother me" if Scottish Muslims went to the United States — seeming to move away from the temporary ban on all foreign Muslims going to the United States that he has called for throughout his presidential campaign. In interviews at his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, Trump went further, saying that the ban would be focused on "terrorist" countries, shifting from his previous proposal of "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." - ABC News (6/25/16)
Trump also indicated on Saturday that his ban is not ironclad and declined to answer directly in an interview with CNN whether his ban would extend to all foreign Muslims.
Instead, Trump emphasized that Muslims from states with heavy terrorist activity would be "very strongly" vetted and suggested that the U.S. would more closely scrutinize all individuals seeking to enter the country. He also told the Daily Mail that individuals from "terror countries" would be "even more severely vetted" but could ultimately be allowed entry into the country. "People coming from the terror states -- and you know who I'm talking about when I talk about the terror states -- we are going to be so vigilant you wouldn't believe it and frankly a lot will be banned," Trump told CNN after touring his golf course here. Trump also focused on the need to ban individuals from "terrorist countries" in an interview later Saturday with Bloomberg Politics.
"I want terrorists out. I want people that have bad thoughts out. I would limit specific terrorist countries and we know who those terrorist countries are," Trump said, again not specifying which countries would be included. - CNN (6/25/16)
The presumptive Republican nominee would now ban Muslims only from “terror” countries, he told the Daily Mail on the 18th hole of his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, while he urged several golfers to play through the hole. "I don't want people coming in from the terror countries. You have terror countries! I don't want them, unless they're very, very strongly vetted," he said, according to NBC News. - CSM (6/26/16)
When CBS News asked Trump, on a tour of his Aberdeen golf course, whether he would allow Muslims from Scotland or Great Britain into the U.S., Trump shook his head.
That "wouldn't bother me," the billionaire responded.
It seemed to be a softening of Trump's initial call, made in December, for a "total and complete shutdown" of all Muslims attempting to step foot on U.S. soil. - CBS (6/25/16)
Trump told reporters that it "wouldn't bother" him if a Muslim immigrated to the U.S. from a country like Scotland.
Then, in an interview with the DailyMail.com, he seemed to expand on a shift away from focusing on religion toward a country-specific policy. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee seemed to say that he may allow Muslim immigrants from certain "terror countries" after applying extra scrutiny."I don't want people coming in — I don't want people coming in from certain countries," Trump told the Daily Mail. "I don't want people coming in from the terror countries. You have terror countries! I don't want them, unless they're very, very strongly vetted.
"People coming from the terror states — and you know who I'm talking about when I talk about the terror states — we are going to be so vigilant you wouldn't believe it and frankly a lot will be banned," Trump later told CNN. - The Hill (6/25/16)
It's pretty clear that Trump is not referring to banning all foreign Muslims any longer. So to say that in the lead to his bio is inaccurate. Instead I think we could say something like:
His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, often non-interventionist views on foreign policy, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (later changed to people from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.
CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your quotes are the exact same ones I was referring to, when I said he has not retracted his proposal to ban all Muslims, and that his proposal to ban "people" from terrorist countries refers to Muslims from those countries (as verified by his spokesperson). And his proposal was not later "changed", it was maybe "refocused". I have deleted the reference to non-interventionist from the sentence, per talk below. I think we are close to agreement. How about something like:
His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (which he later said would focus on those from from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.
- Personally I prefer the wording I proposed above - "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims, particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism, from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists" - over the version with the parentheses, but I won't insist on it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. It may be "pretty clear" to you that "Trump is not referring to banning all foreign Muslims any longer" - but it was not clear to the authors of these references (note the headlines "Did Donald Trump just soften his Muslim ban proposal?"and "Has Donald Trump lifted his Muslim ban?"), or to Trump's spokespeople, or even to Trump himself, who refused to reply to a direct question on that subject - as I pointed out above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN OK. It looks like your proposal in talkquotes above is as close as we're going to get to a reasonable outcome. Let's do it.CFredkin (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've compiled the most relevant passages from the four most mainstream English-language news media, as measured by circulation.
- 1. BBC News: 'Orlando justifies my Muslim ban', says Trump (June 14, 2016).
- Here are five key lines from his speech – and what they could mean.
- [1.] "... I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats."
- ... Trump provided some additional details about the temporary Muslim ban that he proposed ... in December. First of all, it may not be a Muslim ban at this point. In his speech he simply referred to closing the borders to nations that "have a history of terrorism" against the US and its allies...
- 2. AP: In his words: Donald Trump's evolving Muslim ban (June 28, 2016).
- June 24–25, 2016: ... At one point Trump tells reporters that he'd be fine with Muslims from Scotland or the U.K. coming to the U.S. Trump later takes to Twitter to offer a clarification: "We must suspend immigration from regions linked with terrorism until a proven vetting method is in place."
- 3. Reuters: After Florida shooting, Trump hardens stance on Muslims (June 14, 2016).
- The presumptive Republican presidential nominee ... propos[ed] that the United States suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is "a proven history of terrorism."
- 4. WSJ: Donald Trump back-pedals on banning Muslims from U.S. (June 28, 2016).
- Donald Trump appears to be backing away from one of his ... proposals—banning Muslims from entering the U.S.... Since ... May ... he has gradually moved away from a blanket religious ban and toward a more nuanced policy targeting countries with a record of terrorism.
- --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dervorguilla, are you OK with the wording in the last set of talk-quotes above? --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- None of the above, MelanieN! According to BBC News and other top-ranked authorities, Trump is currently indicating he would not ban persons based on religion. Rather, he's openly saying he would ban persons based on national origin.
- Muslims from England or Scotland: OK. Persons of any claimed religion from Syria: not OK.
- In his platform, Trump is unmistakably advocating national-origin discrimination.
- Many readers are intensely interested in this controversy -- including Muslims living in England! We owe them the best available information as judged by its authority, accuracy/verifiability, and currency. (MLA Handbook.) Not as judged by our own arguments (however logical) that Trump's statement is confusing or misleading.
- The four authorities cited above do not support the information that "his platform includes ... a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims". Indeed, they would seem more to contradict it. For this reason, I'm removing the information forthwith.
- That "Trump has never retracted his previous proposed 'ban on Muslims'" is almost a truism; as a matter of principle, Trump doesn't retract anything he's previously proposed! Nor do most other political figures (e.g., Bill Clinton or George Bush). It would amount to acknowledging they made a mistake.
- Nor does Trump in particular feel obligated to address any embarrassing question in a straightforward manner -- or at all.
- Although many publications do dwell on such matters, the most authoritative ones (BBC, WSJ, and the like) try to avoid them as being, shall we say, comparatively trifling (or perhaps even a bit juvenile for a seasoned journalist to report on at any great length?). What really matters is, what is the candidate saying in his most authoritative (i.e., most fully amended) platform. Not, what did he say last year.
- Look at it this way: Has any high-quality source proposed that Trump was more candid or truthful last year than he is this year?
- (Nonetheless, I think we were wise to spend some time investigating this matter.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 09:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"non-interventionist"
I realize that one of the difficulties with Trump is that he often says mutually contradictory things, but given that he wants to "bomb ISIS" and send troops back to the middle east, I think we should eschew describing him as "non-interventionist" in the lede. Both sources and his own statements are contradictory. Roughly what he seems to mean by "non-interventionists" is "it's bad if someone other than me does it". Anyway, I don't think there's enough support for that to be in the lede.
A similar issue arises with trade where he has described himself as "free trader".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it says "often" non-interventionist, although your summary is probably more accurate. I would be OK with removing the "non-interventionist" thing from the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Volunteer Marek that it should be removed—he has been inconsistent and supports intervention in some cases, and the sources say so. Neutralitytalk 22:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I removed "non-interventionist" from the lede. There is still a mention, suitably hedged, in the body of the text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That seems good, thanks. Neutralitytalk 00:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I removed "non-interventionist" from the lede. There is still a mention, suitably hedged, in the body of the text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)