→Statement by cardiologists: Bygones |
|||
Line 1,042: | Line 1,042: | ||
:{{tq|modified by other editors since then}} - Yeah, apparently there is some misunderstanding that a consensus has to be in the list to require prior consensus to change it{{emdash}}enough of one for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=844191549&oldid=844190801 that change] to slip by without challenge. The prior consensus rule predates the list, so that can't be the case. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 08:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
:{{tq|modified by other editors since then}} - Yeah, apparently there is some misunderstanding that a consensus has to be in the list to require prior consensus to change it{{emdash}}enough of one for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=844191549&oldid=844190801 that change] to slip by without challenge. The prior consensus rule predates the list, so that can't be the case. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 08:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Bygones. Now what is your opinion on the above two versions? — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
::Bygones. Now what is your opinion on the above two versions? — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::I think you know how I feel about these things. A lot of editor time is invested in the consensus version, I see no compelling reason to revisit, and I feel our limited time would be better spent on things that haven't received any attention. I think perfect is the enemy of good and the status quo is Good Enough. I don't claim that such discussions are strictly improper, but I generally sit them out. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 11:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:New versions seems better to me [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
:New versions seems better to me [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:37, 3 June 2018
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0Template:Vital article |
Other talk page banners | |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LittleRobbinBird (article contribs). |
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Open RfCs and surveys
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)
Should we mention the Forbes 400 tapes in the 'wealth' section of the article?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since it seems like everyone has presented their arguments and there are requests for an RFC... this discussion led to debates over whether we should include this edit, which covers tapes by reporter Jonathan Greenberg that he says shows Trump lying in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. The main argument seems to be over whether the topic is WP:DUE (and, therefore, whether it would be a WP:BALANCE issue to include or exclude it.
Some relevant sources: [1], the initial article; secondary coverage in these: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Survey
- Include as proposer. The heavy coverage more than adequately demonstrates that a single sentence devoted to this is not WP:UNDUE; beyond that, we already mention that Trump was on this list, and covering that without at least noting a high-profile controversy related to that inclusion is clearly a WP:BALANCE issue. The existence of the tapes is not in doubt (Greenberg has produced them), and their interpretation with regards to Trump lying about his wealth to get on the Forbes 400 does not seem to be particularly controversial, in the sense that no sources have contradicted Greenberg's interpretations and several have unambiguously reported it as fact. This is a high-profile controversy related to Trump's wealth that must be mentioned in the appropriate section of this article to ensure proper balance with the (sometimes primary-sourced) figures already there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Include per what I said above. Notable controversy, there isn't a "old stuff" relating to events 30 years ago clause in NPOV for disinclusion, and by the same token would disinclude all his old net worths. As Aquillon says, noting that he is on the list without the doubts/controversies associated is contrary to NPOV, representing all the significant viewpoints there. We should also include all the other doubts about Forbes's figures, which we currently present without comment. E.g, in 1982 his net worth was actually 5 million$ not 100 million$, according to this same article. Doubts about forbes figures were also reported in the 2005 nytimes source which we use the in the article. There is also a lot more coverage about his..very high, ludricuous..claims, as in Trump Revealed, "Yet his claims were questioned, time and again.". We do include the claims, but not how they are questioned - we mostly present the point of view of that of forbes estimates and himself without all the questions about them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Include This should be included we but only if we keep it an appropriate size and mention that it is just an allegation so far. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Include - as noted earlier => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Include: WP:RS. Would be a WP:POV decision not to include.Casprings (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Include The proposer's first sentence hits the nail on the head. Greg L (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude - edited audio tapes, no proof of dates or authenticity, purportedly dating back
3634 years when the reporter was in his early 20s. He was an ex-writer for Forbes, so I guess he moved up the ladder 40 years later to become a blogger for HuffPo? Nah. It's just another allegation scraped up from the bottom of the barrel. It has no encyclopedic value. Atsme📞📧 03:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Atsme, can you at least provide a reliable source to back up the claim that these audio tapes have been edited in misleading way? (Also not sure what the reporter's age has to do with anything) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sound editorial judgment is all that's required - tape 1 clearly isn't the full conversation - it's a 1:47 sound bite - no proof of who called whom, there's no recorded date only Greenberg's word, no way to confirm what the conversation was actually about much less in what context it was taken, it ended as abruptly as it began. The same with the 2nd tape - a 1:07 sound bite - all you know is what Greenberg reported. As for Greenberg's age - he brought it up in the WaPo article:
I was a determined 25-year-old reporter, and I thought that, by reeling Trump back from some of his more outrageous claims, I’d done a public service and exposed the truth.
I must've missed his exposé while reading his online resumé. In the WaPo report he claims innocence - that he and his Forbes colleagues thought of it as "vain embellishments on the truth"...until 34+/- years later? Meh! And where does his story show up? Front page? No - it's in a Perspective column (opinion piece) that WaPo defines as:Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences.
Poorly sourced for contentious material about a BLP (circular reporting counts as one source, and the opinion piece is the primary). He's barely getting any baitclick mileage out of it in the anti-Trump markets - zero lasting encyclopedic value - poof, the buzz is already gone. Atsme📞📧 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)- OK. So, razor sharp acumen and unassailable logic of some select wikipedians could be used when the RSs don’t seem to catch on to these drop-dead obvious truths, Atsme. I suppose I might be able to go along with that. Moreover, your proposal seems to actually embrace the last of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars (Wikipedia has no firm rules), though this concept of yours seems to run afoul with the second Pillar (pertaining to citing reliable, authoritative sources) as flawed as the RSs can be at times. Greg L (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sound editorial judgment is all that's required - tape 1 clearly isn't the full conversation - it's a 1:47 sound bite - no proof of who called whom, there's no recorded date only Greenberg's word, no way to confirm what the conversation was actually about much less in what context it was taken, it ended as abruptly as it began. The same with the 2nd tape - a 1:07 sound bite - all you know is what Greenberg reported. As for Greenberg's age - he brought it up in the WaPo article:
- Atsme, can you at least provide a reliable source to back up the claim that these audio tapes have been edited in misleading way? (Also not sure what the reporter's age has to do with anything) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Include - notable and reliably sourced. Also, including the fact that he was on the list, while deliberately ignoring the controversy about how he got there is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- So you think this comment should be included because an ex-Forbes reporter is a more reliable source than the President of the United States? Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)g
- That is a terrible argument, on multiple counts. 1. We're not excluding Trump's viewpoint, nor saying that the report is more reliable than POTUS (strawman), but merely including all significant viewpoints per NPOV 2. Trump's history of exaggeration and falsehoods is well documented and yuge. The ex-forbes reporter, meanwhile, is a investigative journalist who would be fired if he repeatedly lied etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- So you think this comment should be included because an ex-Forbes reporter is a more reliable source than the President of the United States? Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)g
- Exclude. This seems extremely trivial. Everyone already knows that Trump puffs himself up at every opportunity. His buildings are the greatest, his TV ratings are the highest, his poll numbers are the best, etc. This is just more of the same thing. This is useless trivia at best. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Include - notable and reliably sourced. Trump's primary claim regarding his qualifications for becoming president was that his wealth was proof of his competency. Each and every lie he told that is subsequently exposed is therefore notable. 71.46.56.59 (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude - trivia lightly covered tabloid piece, simply not a major action by Trump or significant effect to his life that would make it suitable for BLP. Out of 10 M google for trump I got 39 on this and they mostly seem listed above. Most of those cites are tabloids or unknowns -- skipping past all those kgw, zeenews india, gq, esquire, ktla, hugoobserver, uproxx, pasemagazine, ... whats left? Seems a USAtoday CNN and CNBS is all thats left, 'Greenberg says in a 20 April WaPo piece', so apparently not significant effect or coverage. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: We should be nice to Donald Trump because if he likes what he reads about himself on Wikipedia, he will be more likely to be nice to Wikipedia. Therefore I believe this unreliable personal attack on Donald Trump should be strong exclude. This unreliable personal attack accomplishes nothing. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I can't tell if this comment is meant as a joke or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
|
- Comment I wouldn't include it in the form presented in Special:Diff/837621017, but I'd support including it as a caveat to the sentence
He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of wealthy individuals in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune, including an "undefined" share of his parents' estate.
The WaPo reference [16] claims that he was reported to have a $100 million fortune at that time. The NYTimes reference saysForbes gave him an undefined share of a family fortune that the magazine estimated at $200 million
. The fact that Trump attempted to inflate his reported wealth in Forbes magazine shouldn't be controversial, and if we're including those numbers, we should mention it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude 30+ old allegations are encyclopedic or relevant to this article. Sovietmessiah (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include. Obviously good content about a notable situation. Properly sourced documentation of one more of the deceptions he used to create an undeserved reputation. That it reflects poorly on him is not the fault of the sources or editors, but of Trump himself. The fact that it's a combination of deceptive acts makes it even more notable, and not a passing, insignificant, and trivial factoid. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include. Fascinating insight that speaks to the kind of person Trump is. Well-sourced, interesting content that is relevant and notable. What's not to love? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include Sources show that it is relevant and notable. LK (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude per UNDUE. Secondary coverage only repeats claims from the original reporting. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Exclude as this isn't suppose to be a tabloid newspaper. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include This content is well-referenced and the fact that the incident is 30 years old is actually a good thing for a BLP prone to problems of recentism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include Heavy coverage in RS. Puts the net worth claims already in the article in context. Certainly doesn’t run afoul of recentism/notnews. O3000 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude – Undue old story, apparently unearthed only to smear the BLP subject. Who cares how rich he ever pretended to be? I remember him stating his net worth was "over 10 billion dollars" when he started his campaign. The whole world laughed it off, and professional estimates oscillated between 3 and 4.5 billion. I guess that's "over 10 billion" in typical Trump-speak… — JFG talk 10:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Include. Properly sourced documentation of one more of the deceptions he used to create an undeserved reputation. That it reflects poorly on him is not the fault of the sources or editors, but of Trump himself. The fact that it's a combination of deceptive acts makes it even more notable, and not a passing, insignificant, and trivial factoid. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: You already voted above, on May 2nd here. You should strike one of your votes. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: You already voted above, on May 2nd here. You should strike one of your votes. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include in this article, or add in here or here. However, the place in the main article in an ideal place to put it. I change my !vote for exclude to include. Emass100 (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- But in that case, how do we let readers know that the wealth figure in this article is a fabrication? SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) Exclude as presented. The edit made was deceptive, as its location and wording imply that the ranking he manipulated is the current one when it's actually one from 30 years ago. The information, however, is not unwarranted. I could support something more along the lines of Power~enwiki's proposal, which would be useful for establishing some context to disputes over his exact wealth. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include, preferably in the False statements section. Another important whopper that precedes his presidential tenure. He lied – both as himself and as the fictitious "John Barron" – to get on the list and then lied to the banks with the list as proof of his creditworthyness? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC) And a sentence to the Wealth section, citing Greenberg's WaPO article, e.g.: He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 a list of wealthy individuals in 1982 with an estimated $100 million fortune; for real estate wealth, the list "relied disproportionately on what people told" Forbes because most of the relevant records were not public. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment if I analyze this by the main purpose of why Wikipedia exists and its policies, indeed, we have a WP:POV issue if RS are ignored. Yet, we all know how news like these spread and this is a topic many newspapers we trust would pick up easily. Robertgombos (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: The challenge resulting in removal said that it was "WaPo opinion piece (including 2 other sources citing that same piece) by ex-employee of Forbes...UNDUE, poorly sourced." It is not an opinion when a reporter reports what happened to him in 1982 and has tapes to back up his story. However, another journalist, Timothy L. O’Brien, had already reported 13 years earlier - without naming anyone on Forbes staff - that Trump had bamboozled Forbes into putting him on the lists from the very first one published in 1982 and on through 2004. Trump sued O’Brien for $5 billion for defaming him by contradicting Trump’s claims of being a multi-billionaire. After he lost, he appealed the case and lost the appeal, (too). Also, Forbes has admitted that people have lied to them about their wealth "occasionally" while a Forbes editor said in an interview that it was "not unusual to catch billionaires lying about their net worth — and Trump has a long history of exaggerating his numbers". Since the Forbes 400 figures prominently in the Wealth section, I think the text and the reliable sources I added under the subheading are WP:DUE. Greenberg’s article is merely additional confirmation of stuff other journalists found out years ago, so also WP:DUE. I just added a subsection to Wealth and used Greenberg's recent report as additional confirmation of O'Brien and other sources' reporting. I don't believe that that's a violation of the active arbitration remedies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - insignificant details based on he said-she said allegations over inclusion on the Forbes list is just plain silly and UNDUE. If memory serves, they had just started that list so
it's notissues with a new anything is not unusual. Summaries of major issues/accomplishments are what belongs in the article, not the details of an insignificant alleged screw-up by Forbes. What we need requires long-lasting encyclopedic value, verifiable statements of fact in high quality sources...(1) the alleged Forbes screw-up fails in that regard; (2) Space, we currently have 86 kB (14003 words) "readable prose size", and the material you added made it 88 kB (14244 words) "readable prose size". Considering WP:Article size suggests> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) and that >100 kB almost certainly should be divided
we should be trimming this article to make room for the important summaries of his life, not all the little details and after-the-fact he said-she said allegations which are so obviously UNDUE. Atsme📞📧 17:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Atsme: All of that stuff provides important context. The fact is, the most notable fact of Trump's entire life is that he is a person who exaggerates his wealth, his sexual prowess (and related organs), his importance, his crowd sizes, his effectiveness, the size of his hands, the height of his buildings, and a whole host of other things. In fact, using UNDUE as an argument against inclusion is so deliciously ironic it made me laugh out loud. Anyway, this discussion is nearing its scheduled end with a significant majority of editors in favor of inclusion. I would prefer nobody edits (either to add or remove) content until the discussion has been closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Understood, but the Wealth section was not well-written and it did not reflect what the sources say. I fixed some of it - cited the NYTimes article which included their analysis of the actual required financial disclosure that Trump submitted, not the "predicted one". I fixed the Forbes statement and why they actually reduced their evaluation. I think you'll find that it reflects what the sources actually say, and flows a little better. We really don't have to tell readers that he exaggerates - the sources do that for us if you'll let them. Read the paragraph and you'll see what I mean. It is better not to beat our readers over the head with a specific POV, just report the facts and they'll get the message loud and clear - that's what I've tried to explain from the beginning...and I do hope one day y'all will find that my copyedit skills are an asset, not a liability. Atsme📞📧 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody should be editing a section currently under discussion, and particularly a section that has been "challenged" by editors, regardless of how much of an "asset" any editor thinks they are. You're making content changes, not just innocently copyediting. Please stop and self revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Scjessey, what I did was copyedit material that was already there, which has nothing to do with adding those potentially "edited" tapes to that section which is what this survey is about. If you still don't understand how DS sanctions work, ask an admin to clarify it for you. Your Nobody outburst was unwarranted, and foolish. I suggest striking your comment because it comes across as BATTLEGROUND when I was trying to have a meaningful discussion with you. Atsme📞📧 22:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody should be editing a section currently under discussion, and particularly a section that has been "challenged" by editors, regardless of how much of an "asset" any editor thinks they are. You're making content changes, not just innocently copyediting. Please stop and self revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Understood, but the Wealth section was not well-written and it did not reflect what the sources say. I fixed some of it - cited the NYTimes article which included their analysis of the actual required financial disclosure that Trump submitted, not the "predicted one". I fixed the Forbes statement and why they actually reduced their evaluation. I think you'll find that it reflects what the sources actually say, and flows a little better. We really don't have to tell readers that he exaggerates - the sources do that for us if you'll let them. Read the paragraph and you'll see what I mean. It is better not to beat our readers over the head with a specific POV, just report the facts and they'll get the message loud and clear - that's what I've tried to explain from the beginning...and I do hope one day y'all will find that my copyedit skills are an asset, not a liability. Atsme📞📧 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Atsme: All of that stuff provides important context. The fact is, the most notable fact of Trump's entire life is that he is a person who exaggerates his wealth, his sexual prowess (and related organs), his importance, his crowd sizes, his effectiveness, the size of his hands, the height of his buildings, and a whole host of other things. In fact, using UNDUE as an argument against inclusion is so deliciously ironic it made me laugh out loud. Anyway, this discussion is nearing its scheduled end with a significant majority of editors in favor of inclusion. I would prefer nobody edits (either to add or remove) content until the discussion has been closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include - The article already discusses Trump's wealth and Forbes 400 status, so it would be absurd to omit this aspect, which is supported by numerous sources. In fact, the mere 24 words proposed is probably insufficient considering how it relates to the overall theme of Trump's character.- MrX 🖋 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include no more than a single cited sentence. Any more weight given to this factoid would be undue. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude per Atsme and leaning toward Compassionate727's proposal. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've requested a close at ANRFC Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Amend consensus item 2, unlink New York City in the infobox
Almost trivial (sorry). Wouldn't need prior consensus but for the existing consensus item. Propose amending #Current consensus item 2 to unlink "New York City" in the infobox. This is not an invitation to revisit the rest of that consensus, please stay on topic.
- Support as proposer per WP:OVERLINK, which lists New York City as one of the examples of things that don't need linking, and has done since 1 August 2016[17] without challenge. That was 3+1⁄2 months before the consensus 2 discussion and we just missed it. Overlinking bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - overlinking...a pet peeve for many. Atsme📞📧 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, I dislike overlinking as much as the next guy, but a standalone link in an infobox does make sense to help readers who may want to indulge in exploratory clicks. The guideline mostly refers to avoiding links to common terms in prose, where they can degrade the reading experience. Infoboxes typically have plenty of links, and I rarely see people complaining of overlinking there. Shall we unlink President of the United States because it's a common and well-understood term? I don't think so. Ditto New York City. — JFG talk 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is the problem with whataboutism. Yes, you could make a case for unlinking President of the United States, but then you would face strong resistance from the Wikipedia Presidential Infoboxes Consistency Coalition. You would probably have to seek a community consensus to change all 44 at the same time, a very different proposition. That's a false equivalence. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- I just sampled 30 articles from Politicians from New York City, and all of them have their birth and death places linked from the infobox. There is some variance as to mentioning the borough, the state, and linking thereof, but all instances of New York City are linked. You're facing an uphill battle if you wish to de-link them… — JFG talk 19:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - As I said above, but for the consensus item I would have BOLDed this edit and I doubt anyone would have challenged that (even JFG). The consensus list is overall a Good Thing, most of us agree on that, but it shouldn't cause a lack of interest to be an obstacle. I would appreciate some participation here, even if it's more Opposes. I promise not to argue with any more Opposes—there isn't much more to say about this issue—so it will only take 30 seconds of your life. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Trump's inspiration (Early life and education)
Context: [18][19] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Dane Suggest you revert your reinstatement and take it to this Talk page, per warning of active arbitration remedies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Was the content you removed added recently? I don't believe so (the remedies apply to reinstating edits not material) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
From what I see Space4Time3Continuum2x removed longstanding material here and Dana challanged the removal here. The material appears to have been in the article since at least March 8th. If that is the case it is not a DS violation. PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's correct, and bullet 1 of the restrictions is quite clear on that point. Dane disputed an edit by S4T3C2x and S4T3C2x has to seek consensus for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Space4Time3Continuum2x for raising your concern here. At this time, I stand by my revert. The information is sourced and relevant to the section in my opinion and removing it creates a fractured section that doesn't flow as smoothly. I am aware of the discretionary sanctions that apply to this article and I have not violated those and will not violate them. -- Dane talk 18:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support first sentence as fairly standard bio information. No opinion on second sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Dane,Mandruss,Galobtter I hadn't noticed that I removed the sentence preceding the one about Trump being inspired. Sorry about that, it was unintentional. The second sentence is unencyclopedic and IMO misquotes the source. So how do I remove it? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- You seek consensus to remove it, right here. If you get said consensus, you or anybody else removes it. If not, not. As I indicated, I have no opinion on that sentence, so I'm useless here. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, after a closer look I'll agree that it misrepresents the source, significantly spinning it in the Trump-favorable direction. On the other hand, if you represent the source accurately in wiki voice, you're cherry-picking the Trump-unfavorable. I think Dane's concern about fracturing and flow might well be different now that you've clarified that you only seek to remove the second sentence. I think I would either remove the sentence as relatively unimportant, or replace it with a quote attributed to the authors of the book. In the end it's just their opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Mandruss. Also, I would shorten "
After two years, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, because it offered one of the few real-estate studies departments in United States academia at the time.
" toAfter two years, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, the only Ivy League undergraduate business school.
" (per Kranish & Fisher, p47 "the sole Ivy League school with an undergraduate business school", or paraphrase differently if necessary). Also, since Trump has boasted of being the top student at Wharton, perhaps the section should mention that there is no evidence of that. zzz (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC) + 20:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC) - The reference to William Zeckendorf is meaningful in this bio, as one of the precious few hints about Trump's drive to become "big in Manhattan" instead of just managing his father's ventures. About Wharton, I'd remove the mention of "because it offered… at the time", that sounds more like an ad for Wharton and the causation is probably a matter of opinion or hearsay only. — JFG talk 19:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seems to me that we have consensus to remove the sentence, with three editors agreeing, one opposed, and one, Dane, having left the discussion (has been editing since Mandruss's notification). Other editors have removed other parts of the two sentences Dane reinserted, and nobody has objected. Aside from that, there's also the egregious mispresentation of the source. The pages cited in the article are 47,50,104,105. 47 & 50 mention Zeckendorf, but not Trump's father. The preview doesn't show 104 & 105, so I got ahold of the book. Talk about cherry-picked, out of context, and - I believe - intentional misrepresentation because how could anyone overlook one of three men mentioned, the third one being Roy Cohn. Quoting from page 104: "In his book, Trump: The Art of the Deal, Trump plainly spelled out his media philosophy, the product of three men who influenced him and New York's unique media environment in the 1970s and 1980s–his father, Fred; developer William Zeckendorf; and Donald's lawyer, Roy Cohn". And on page 105, finally the word inspiration: "Fred Trump knew the value of good publicity. As a young developer, he routinely sent out press releases promoting his latest projects, somethimes referring to himself as "Brooklyn's Largest Builder." Donald's touch for the dramatic probably drew more inspiration, however, from another developer. Zeckendorf employed a press agent to keep his name in the papers, ideally in stories emphasizing his lavish lifestyle, or announcing outlandish building plans that never came to fruition. As Donald started getting press in the late sententies, some reporters referred to him as a young Zeckendorf. Trump was flattered, even if Zeckendorf's company did end up in bankrupty." So, there you go, JFG, another hint about Trump's drive: vanity. (I'm also adding copycat to Trump's resume.) The NYT article mentioned on page 105 is available online. Good read; the earliest mention I've found so far of some of his recurring themes: Swedish, graduated first in his class at Wharton. Quote: "Mr. Trump, who says he is publicity shy, allowed a reporter to accompany him on what he described as a typical work day." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wharton teaching real estate seems relevant and a dtermining factor, Ivy League does not. Inspiration by father or others seems a bit WP:PEACOCK but not horrible.Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Peripheral indictments in lead
A turn of phrase mentioning peripheral indictments in the Russian interference affair was recently added to the tail of the lead section.[20] The content was swiftly removed,[21] re-inserted in slightly-amended form,[22] challenged on procedural grounds with a request to obtain prior consensus,[23] and restored in a lengthened form with a combative edit summary.[24] ("Not mentioning this in the lead is malpractice.")
It is high time to sit back and open a discussion. @Andrevan: please self-revert your latest addition pending consensus here. @Mandruss and MONGO: please comment. — JFG talk 04:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- I removed it and now both Mandruss and Andrevan violated the page requirements to obtain talkpage consensus first. I stand by my removal as the passage even now reworded somewhat less implicatingly alludes to guilt by association. Furthermore, this is the lead section of the article and is not the place to be bringing up persons out of focus of the subject.--MONGO 04:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- My revert was a good-faith mistake, as I said here. If I had re-reverted after being corrected by JFG, MONGO would have reason to refer to me in that tone. Agree that Andrevan needs to self-revert pending consensus, and someone else should do it if Andrevan fails to do it in a timely manner.
There is no guilt by association as it refers to Trump's denial of campaign collusion. If the lead is not the place to be bringing up persons out of focus of the subject, we need to remove content about DOJ appointing special counsel; Trump had nothing to do with that.
On balance I think the paragraph is more neutral with the addition than without it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, my 2nd change was not the same as the first change. It was not slightly amended, it was rewritten, to attempt to address the reason it was reverted and clarify that there is no implied "guilt by association," simply a reporting of the basic facts of the Trump campaign and its associated controversy. You may of course revert it as well, though it would be my position that you are the one being combative, not I. I will have to read up on the special sanctions in effect on this page to see if my edit ran afoul of them. However, as an editor previously uninvolved, it seems to me that your hawk-like instant reversion of the addition of the indictments and guilty pleas to the lead section, along with tendentious editing to defend Mr. Trump and his associates from transparency or basic reporting, is probably what would run afoul of discretionary sanction on this page, as opposed by my simple attempt to describe the facts of the case in a complete way in the lead section. To ignore these facts is absolutely journalistic malpractice, and probably partistan protectorship and ownership of the article in a POV pushing vein. Andrevan@ 05:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: We can say the second edit is equivalent to the first for purposes of the ArbCom remedies. Or if it's a different edit, MONGO can challenge it separately. Either way we end up here seeking consensus for the second edit, so what's the difference? Please self-revert pending consensus and we can get on with the content discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, @Andrevan:, it is a good time to familiarize yourself with those editing restrictions as I already politely tried to discuss with you on your talkpage. Should you feel a need to pursue this further it will indeed provide you the opportunity to somehow prove my (and others I assume) alleged "tendentious editing".--MONGO 05:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, in my reading of the sanctions, 2 edits with different text and meaning are not mentioned to be specifically equivalent, though of course anyone who hasn't reverted yet in the discussion could revert me. I also haven't reverted yet, nor do I intend to, and I wouldn't construe my 2nd edit to be a revert at all since it was an original sentence. Additional constructive edits to article text which address revert or removal reasons are, to the best of my knowledge, not considered reverts. Now, MONGO is challenging the second edit. I agree that we should seek consensus on how to change the text rather than simply revert or edit warring. Any attempt to protect Mr. Trump's lead section from mentioning the fact that his campaign manager and top surrogate have been indicted and pleaded guilty would be remarkable light on an issue that Mr. Trump himself mentions constantly, not to mention all of the RS and our own article content. Andrevan@ 05:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually your second edit was challenged by JFG but I see no difference between the two really.--MONGO 05:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Which means JFG can revert the edit, unless he can't because he already reverted once in the conversation? Also, my edit isn't contrary to established consensus, because it's a new constructive sentence that didn't exist in the article before. Unless there's some specific guidance that states otherwise, or a previous discussion on the inclusion of what I wrote that you can point to. Andrevan@ 05:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh for Pete's sake. MONGO, will you kindly revert the second edit per routine process? Please write an edit summary that goes beyond IJDLI. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: Its the same thing, you just tweaked the wording a bit but the message is the same. As I found out this isn't about right or wrong its about how this page is permitted to be edited. I suppose I can claim some moral high ground since I did self revert when alerted. If you don't like the way the editing restrictions are set up then welcome to the party....and no way am I reverting this mess again. The whole thing gives me a migraine.--MONGO 05:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Which means JFG can revert the edit, unless he can't because he already reverted once in the conversation? Also, my edit isn't contrary to established consensus, because it's a new constructive sentence that didn't exist in the article before. Unless there's some specific guidance that states otherwise, or a previous discussion on the inclusion of what I wrote that you can point to. Andrevan@ 05:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually your second edit was challenged by JFG but I see no difference between the two really.--MONGO 05:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, in my reading of the sanctions, 2 edits with different text and meaning are not mentioned to be specifically equivalent, though of course anyone who hasn't reverted yet in the discussion could revert me. I also haven't reverted yet, nor do I intend to, and I wouldn't construe my 2nd edit to be a revert at all since it was an original sentence. Additional constructive edits to article text which address revert or removal reasons are, to the best of my knowledge, not considered reverts. Now, MONGO is challenging the second edit. I agree that we should seek consensus on how to change the text rather than simply revert or edit warring. Any attempt to protect Mr. Trump's lead section from mentioning the fact that his campaign manager and top surrogate have been indicted and pleaded guilty would be remarkable light on an issue that Mr. Trump himself mentions constantly, not to mention all of the RS and our own article content. Andrevan@ 05:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Awilley, MelanieN, and NeilN: We may need some admin attention here. Andrevan contests the editing restrictions, and none of Mandruss, MONGO and me want to accidentally trip up a mine by reverting him again. Only after the procedural issue is resolved can we perhaps actually discuss contents… — JFG talk 05:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe I am contesting the editing restrictions, but claiming that my 2nd edit is distinct from my first edit, both in meaning and text. It clearly states that members of Donald's campaign were indicted and pleaded guilty, but that Donald and his family were not implicated. The first version did not say that. I don't see how I am revert warring if I have a total of 2 edits on this page, and they are both different. Andrevan@ 06:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
[25] - "despite guilty pleas and indictments from several members of his campaign."
[26] - "although there have been several indictments and guilty pleas involving campaign staff that do not directly implicate Trump or his family members."
The basic meaning of the two additions is identical. Andrevan, you need to work out wording on the talk page if you wish to re-add substantially identical material that has been challenged. --NeilN talk to me 13:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree, in general people respect the restriction as meaning revision etc is not enough to be considered different. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Proposed content
Well, I restored the stable version of the last paragraph. I have to say that in the revised version by Andrevan, that "although" rather seemed classic WP:SYNTH (see the UN example there), and overall it was very badly written; the version just before I reverted back was the best, but still could be revised; proposing
After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in an investigation into coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and related matters, resulting in several indictments and guilty pleas involving campaign staff. Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia.
As a better written one that is basically a short update that indictments have resulted than trying to do something more. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Comprehensive, yet short. This material is should be in the lead because of it's persistent and extensive coverage in reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Adding, the basic change I made was adding "resulting in several indictments and guilty pleas involving campaign staff", and I think it perfectly reasonable to devote 12 words to the indictments considering how much coverage they've gotten.
- I do have a v2 version, not really related to whether we mention the indictments though
After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, a special counsel began investigating coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and related matters, resulting in several indictments and guilty pleas involving campaign staff. Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia.
- The current formulation rather unnecessarily wordy, I find, more important is what the investigation has led to not how precisely it was appointed Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose both--MONGO 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Adding that maybe this level of detail would be better served in the Presidency of Donald Trump article?--MONGO 17:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as UNDUE – If we are going to talk about indictments and guilty pleas, we should make sure that they are significant with regards to the article subject (Trump himself) and/or to potential collusion with Russia (the declared subject matter of the FBI's and Special Counsel investigations). Turning to the list of indictments to date, we see the following:
- George Papadopoulos charged with a process crime (lying to the FBI)
- Rick Gates and Paul Manafort charged with multiple crimes related to their prior activities supporting an Ukrainian political party and former president
- Michael Flynn charged with a process crime (lying to the FBI), similar to the reason he was fired (lying to the Vice President) – even though the lie was about his conversation with a Russian ambassador, that happened after the election and within his duties as incoming National Security Advisor; he was specifically not charged with helping or soliciting Russia to interfere in the election, or for anything he did during the election campaign.
- Richard Pinedo charged with identity fraud in relation with Russian propaganda; this person is unrelated to the Trump campaign.
- Alex van der Zwaan charged with making false statements in relation to his work with Gates and unspecified Ukrainians; this person is unrelated to the Trump campaign.
- 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian or Russian-controlled companies charged with interference proper (mostly peddling propaganda under false identities); none of these people have been reported to be related to the Trump campaign.
- In summary, none of the criminal charges show any collusion and none of them implicate the BLP subject directly. Hence mentioning them in the lead of his bio would be massively UNDUE and POV. — JFG talk 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose both - it implies that special council was hired as a result of Comey's firing. NYTimes states that by appointing Mueller:
...Mr. Rosenstein could alleviate uncertainty about the government’s ability to investigate the questions surrounding the Trump campaign and the Russians.
WP doesn't need to get caught up in the partisan spin - just states the facts - and keep in mind, it was upon Rosentein's recommendation that Comey was fired. And there's also what JFG said in his iVote above to consider. Atsme📞📧 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that discussion of this topic is driven by partisans who, through tendentious editing, protect this article from factual truths. Overly broadly construed sanctions have allowed any workshopping of article text, including minor changes below, to become stymied by a log-rolled slowplay of talk page wrangling. For example, it's a fact that several members of Trump's campaign pled guilty. That's a very different situation from if 0 members had been charged with a crime and the entire investigation dismissed or closed, such as in the scandals that are discussed on pages like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. BLP doesn't mean whitewashing or PRing articles. Andrevan@ 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan, I hope you're not thinking my oppose had anything at all to do with partisanship - it does not. In fact, I'm a resident of two different countries, and rarely if ever vote in the US or on Bonaire. My thinking is that it may be considered more partisan to say it was the result of Comey's firing instead of perhaps following Comey's firing, or you could qualify it by saying it was the result of escalating pressure from a majority of Democrats, although there were a few anti-Trump Republicans in the mix. According to the NYTimes,
Mr. Rosenstein had been under escalating pressure from Democrats, and even some Republicans, to appoint a special counsel after he wrote a memo that the White House initially cited as the rationale for Mr. Comey’s dismissal.
And that's why I opposed and suggested what the NYTimes stated as the reason. Atsme📞📧 22:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Trump himself stated that he had fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. [27] He later contradicted it, because it's an inconvenient fact for his obstruction of justice case. The line you've just quoted to me, that Rosenstein fired Comey because of the Democrats or some such, might also be part of the story, but in this CNN article, which is more recent than the May 2017 NYT piece, it says: Trump told NBC News' Lester Holt in an interview, "regardless of (Rosenstein's) recommendation, I was going to fire Comey." Andrevan@ 22:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Rudy Giuliani: Special counsel appointment was 'really about the firing of Comey'" *[28] Andrevan@ 22:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with what the most recent RS say (in retrospect rather than it being RECENTISM as in breaking news)...Atsme📞📧 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- This article should permanently be tagged with the current events warning, although I'm guessing that it was in the past and some past discussion determined that it would not be? Is there a sanction or precedent about having that tag? Otherwise, I will throw it on. Andrevan@ 23:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fine with me. I can't remember which of the Trump articles NeilN suggested adding inline tags because a NPOV header tag was quickly removed, so good luck. Maybe you can make one stick. Atsme📞📧 00:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you're thinking of the {{current}} tag, I don't think it's appropriate. Usage guidelines for this tag say:
- As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.
- It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
- Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for less than a day; occasionally longer.
- All of this guidance speaks against such tagging here. The article has been remarkably stable despite the stream of news, as recent events get incorporated in orderly fashion when relevant, and older or less important details get trimmed. — JFG talk 03:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- This article should permanently be tagged with the current events warning, although I'm guessing that it was in the past and some past discussion determined that it would not be? Is there a sanction or precedent about having that tag? Otherwise, I will throw it on. Andrevan@ 23:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with what the most recent RS say (in retrospect rather than it being RECENTISM as in breaking news)...Atsme📞📧 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment See the discussion below for current and proposed wording for the sentence about Trump's denials.--MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose both -- Really about staff, not Trump, so not lead items for Trump BLP. Also, as charges are unrelated to Russian investigation, it is incorrect to include that as part of the same line. Prefer the simpler investigation and denial as being the elements specific to Trump. And generally prefer simpler and shorter. Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Collusion?
Why is the word collusion in there at all? Collusion isn't a legal term or a term of art. The relevant facts are that several members of Trump's campaign have been indicted and pled guilty to a criminal investigation, but Trump himself has not been directly implicated. His denials and repeated claim of "no collusion" are undue weight given to the subject's own narrative. Andrevan@ 17:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- See the recent messy discussion where the denial was added Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- I propose we change it from "colluison" to "wrongdoing" since he has also denied other forms of wrongdoing. Maybe we could even say he has called the investigation a witch hunt. As written, the article basically says this, paraphrasing: Trump was investigated, but NO COLLUSION! That's not NPOV. Clearly the investigation is a major albatross that gets discussed massively like a slow motion train wreck on a daily basis by RS, unlike, say, Benghazi or the Fast and Furious scandal which, while they may have taken up a lot of Congressional time, were mostly a blip in RS. The comparison to the Trump investigation is Watergate. Andrevan@ 22:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Have boldly added language about the witch hunt to the lead. Please discuss here. Andrevan@ 23:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Looks fair, although a bit long-winded; will copyedit. What's your source for "demanding the Department of Justice drop the matter"? Apart from Twitter rants about the "witch hunt", I do not remember seeing any request from the Trump administration to DOJ to shut down the investigation. Plenty of rumors of his alleged desire to fire Mueller and the impending doom, but again no action. — JFG talk 03:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, he generally says it is a witch hunt that MUST END NOW[29] and he's expressed desire to fire Mueller, Sessions or Rosenstein[30][31][32] on several occasions. Giuliani recently said the false end date[33]. Andrevan@ 03:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are correct, and none of these musings amount to a "demand" to the DOJ, so we cannot write that. — JFG talk 03:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- In order to convey Trump's impatience with the investigation, may I suggest a simpler wording:
calling the investigation a witch hunt that should be wound down.
— JFG talk 03:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)- That's awfully charitable to go from "MUST END" to "wound down," wouldn't you say? Andrevan@ 03:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Encyclopedic tone… — JFG talk 04:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- The special counsel investigation has produced almost 20 indictments, 5 guilty pleas, 3 from Trump's team & 1 already serving jail time. Defendants are facing 100+ criminal charges including conspiracy against the US, bank fraud, lying to FBI investigators. [34] Trump has demanded that the witch hunt must end. What about that is unencyclopedic? Andrevan@ 04:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Would this be your new proposed text? It's certainly encyclopedic in tone, but undue for the lede of this bio – better suited in the lede of Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). I see you trimmed the phrase in the article already, and I took the liberty to copyedit further, conveying a strong expression of Trump's wish that the investigation was "terminated". — JFG talk 05:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- The special counsel investigation has produced almost 20 indictments, 5 guilty pleas, 3 from Trump's team & 1 already serving jail time. Defendants are facing 100+ criminal charges including conspiracy against the US, bank fraud, lying to FBI investigators. [34] Trump has demanded that the witch hunt must end. What about that is unencyclopedic? Andrevan@ 04:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Encyclopedic tone… — JFG talk 04:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's awfully charitable to go from "MUST END" to "wound down," wouldn't you say? Andrevan@ 03:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, he generally says it is a witch hunt that MUST END NOW[29] and he's expressed desire to fire Mueller, Sessions or Rosenstein[30][31][32] on several occasions. Giuliani recently said the false end date[33]. Andrevan@ 03:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Now, we need another sentence at the end. Trump has called for the investigation to be terminated. Instead, it has continued, resulting in a number of indictments and guilty pleas of his campaign staff. Otherwise you're leaving it dangling with simply Trump's narrative without the reality. Because, of course, as you know, it is not a witch hunt at all -- or do we disagree on that? Andrevan@ 06:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on whether this investigation should be called a witch hunt, a fishing expedition, or the last refuge of democracy. Whatever it is called, I stand by my earlier argument against mentioning indictments at this stage and in this BLP lede section, because all known indictments as of today are unrelated to Trump. The continuation of investigations is due, and is reflected in the very existence of this last paragraph. — JFG talk 08:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone can think the indictments aren't related to Trump. Of course they are. Trump has been associating himself with, hiring, or appointing shady characters who have ended up being indicted/charged/convicted. These associations Trump has are far stronger and have greater implications than, for example, Barack Obama's tenuous connections with Jeremiah Wright or Tony Rezko that the right wing succeeded in making a big deal of. I'm not a fan of guilt by association, but Trump's connections with some of the indicted people are pretty strong. He's STILL trying to defend Mike Flynn, despite some pretty disturbing revelations. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Guilt by association is an interesting concept to entertain, but it's still UNDUE here until such time as somebody from Trump's campaign or inner circle gets indicted for actually conspiring with Russia, not merely for fumbling their FBI interview. Incidentally, what do you call "disturbing revelations" about Flynn? I haven't seen anything new being reported recently. — JFG talk 16:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- JFG, do you mean to be saying that collusion, collaboration, or conspiracy are equivalent to "guilt by association", which has the universal meaning of an unfair and unfounded disparagement? For AGF's sake, I'd really appreciate some clarity on what you intended by the preceding comment before I respond. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not at all. I'm just saying that the indictments of Trump-related people so far have not mentioned any "collusion, collaboration, or conspiracy" with Russia regarding election interference (double-check the list above). Hence, mentioning those indictments here would be peddling guilt by association. I'll be happy to change my mind if/when Mueller comes up with more meat. He did indict a bunch of people for "conspiracy to defraud the United States": they are all Russian and unrelated to Trump, so they have nothing to do in Trump's bio. — JFG talk 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter. Trump fired Comey, Rosenstein appointed Mueller, Mueller has indicted a number of Russian conspirators and Trump campaign associates. Some have pled guilty, some are going to trial. It doesn't really matter that the crimes are not "collusion." That isn't how this works. There's a major ongoing investigation of the Trump campaign that Trump called a politically motivated witch hunt, which has made some major indictments and guilty pleas of Trump campaign staff. There's no rule that all of that has to be "collusion" to be relevant to Trump. Andrevan@ 18:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- JFG, I'm unable to understand your response as anything other than doubling down on the equivocation that is in your initial statement above. We'll see what others think, but I see no merit at all in your argument. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. Perhaps you could present counter-arguments that would explain how any of the currently-known indictments are DUE for Trump's BLP lede? This would help our fellow editors reach an informed decision one way or the other. — JFG talk 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- You've just completely ignored the point I've made clear twice now. Conspiracy is a crime. "Guilt by association is unfounded disparagement". You have repeatedly referred to a alleged crime, conspiracy, which is what's being investigated, as if it were the illogical and untoward "guilt by association" that most rational people dismiss out of hand. Deflection on a straightforward editorial decision makes it extremely difficult to achieve good article text and requires an undue level of diligence to catch subtle but significant distortions of language. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. Perhaps you could present counter-arguments that would explain how any of the currently-known indictments are DUE for Trump's BLP lede? This would help our fellow editors reach an informed decision one way or the other. — JFG talk 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not at all. I'm just saying that the indictments of Trump-related people so far have not mentioned any "collusion, collaboration, or conspiracy" with Russia regarding election interference (double-check the list above). Hence, mentioning those indictments here would be peddling guilt by association. I'll be happy to change my mind if/when Mueller comes up with more meat. He did indict a bunch of people for "conspiracy to defraud the United States": they are all Russian and unrelated to Trump, so they have nothing to do in Trump's bio. — JFG talk 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- The idea that Trump's campaign staff have merely pled guilty to fumbling their FBI interview on a technicality is not at all true, and is a Republican talking point. For example, Rick Gates pled guilty to "conspiracy." [35] Andrevan@ 18:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Gates pled guilty to "conspiracy" indeed… about having been an undeclared foreign agent for Ukraine, and lying to the Special Counsel about a 2013 meeting as he lobbied Congress on behalf of Ukraine.[36] Off-topic. — JFG talk 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- What is the "topic"? Whatever Donald Trump says is the topic? It's relevant because it is a matter that arose out of Mueller's investigation concerning members of Donald Trump's campaign. As I'm sure you very well know, the way prosecutors generally work is they obtain guilty pleas and cooperation agreements from involved individuals in order to build cases against the targets of the investigation. For example, Don Jr., Michael Cohen, Jared Kushner, Roger Stone, etc. The fact that Gates and Manafort are being charged with their work with Ukraine does not mean it's totally irrelevant to Donald Trump. In fact, he makes it all the more relevant with his nonstop tweeting and commenting about it. Furthermore, it's completely relevant that Michael Flynn pled guilty and is cooperating, it's not a "technical" crime at all. He is cooperating with the investigation, ie he has "flipped." [37] The claim that these investigations are simply peripheral and irrelevant is a Republican talking point. Andrevan@ 18:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Gates pled guilty to "conspiracy" indeed… about having been an undeclared foreign agent for Ukraine, and lying to the Special Counsel about a 2013 meeting as he lobbied Congress on behalf of Ukraine.[36] Off-topic. — JFG talk 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- JFG, do you mean to be saying that collusion, collaboration, or conspiracy are equivalent to "guilt by association", which has the universal meaning of an unfair and unfounded disparagement? For AGF's sake, I'd really appreciate some clarity on what you intended by the preceding comment before I respond. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I most certainly am not. The above is covered extensively in RS. Which statement of mine do you find possible speculation and I will furnish a source. Andrevan@ 18:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Speculating that Flynn has "flipped", speculating that Don Jr., Cohen, Kushner, Stone, etc. will be indicted, speculating that Ukrainian lobbying over the last 10 years has anything to do with Trump's candidacy, speculating that Trump's tweetstorms have anything to do with reality. But we're drifting into WP:FORUM territory and we should stop. — JFG talk 18:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I most certainly am not. The above is covered extensively in RS. Which statement of mine do you find possible speculation and I will furnish a source. Andrevan@ 18:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- 'Team Trump in shock as Flynn flips' [38] 'Flynn Flipped. Who’s Next?' [[39] 'The explosive video that shows how Flynn flipped' [40] 'Flynn flipping is a major break for Mueller — and bad news for the next big target' [41] 'Mueller Seems to Be Flipping More and More Former Trump Allies' [42] 'Michael Flynn has signed a plea deal with Robert Mueller. Trump should be very worried' [43] Andrevan@ 18:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, Google is our friend. But I do make a distinction between "cooperating with the investigation" (which is true and well-documented), and "flipping", which is speculation that such cooperation will lead to any damning charges against Trump or his inner circle. As for the rest, it's all WP:CRYSTAL. — JFG talk 18:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- 'Team Trump in shock as Flynn flips' [38] 'Flynn Flipped. Who’s Next?' [[39] 'The explosive video that shows how Flynn flipped' [40] 'Flynn flipping is a major break for Mueller — and bad news for the next big target' [41] 'Mueller Seems to Be Flipping More and More Former Trump Allies' [42] 'Michael Flynn has signed a plea deal with Robert Mueller. Trump should be very worried' [43] Andrevan@ 18:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
No, RS say that Flynn flipped, and we should report as such. Do you disagree? I'm not saying that Flynn flipping should be in the lede in this article. My point is that guilty pleas and indictments are relevant to Trump himself. There's no crystal balling by simply stating the fact - the investigation has led to a number of guilty pleas and indictments. Andrevan@ 19:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Flynn pled guilty to lying about his conversation with Kislyak, and he is cooperating with Mueller; we agree on that much. You also admit that's not lede-worthy material for this BLP. Per my own advice, I'll stop arguing now. Good night! — JFG talk 19:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't want to mention Flynn specifically by name, but the total impact of several guilty pleas and indictments IS relevant to Trump. To keep it out of the lead is giving cover to Trump and his public relations interest. NPOV means stating Trump's position "it's a politically motivated witch hunt" and then stating Mueller's action as it pertains thereto "Mueller has indicted and obtained guilty pleas from a number of members of Trump's campaign, and has indicated his desire to interview Trump himself." Andrevan@ 19:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with JFG in that the investigation is ongoing. I'm of the mind that these indictments and guilty pleas should not be included in the Trump bio - they belong in the Mueller investigation article, and to make it NPOV compliant, all relevant views should be included. Where is the factual statement that was published in a high quality RS that formally or even informally indicts Trump as having a direct connection? Yes, Gates pleaded guilty to lying about Manafort, and for conspiring to defraud the U.S. via false statements regarding his status as a foreign agent. Did he say Trump was involved, and if so where is that report? Papadopoulos (briefly a foreign policy advisor) made material false statements and material omissions about his contacts with Kremlin-connected Russians - did he say Trump was involved? Flynn pled guilty to making false statements, did he testify under oath that Trump was involved? Manafort has not pled guilty to the charges against him, so in the US, one is innocent until proven guilty and the investigation is ongoing. Facts only, please. In addition to the aforementioned, we have a partisan divide over what I'll refer to as Bubblegate based on the linked article. To summarize, unless we present all relevant views, we're teetering on noncompliance with NPOV. With regards to the Manafort issue we are treading into NOTNEWS territory since it's all still based on allegations, journalistic opinion/speculation until after the trial. We must be careful about how the information is presented, but again, it doesn't belong in Trump's BLP; rather it belongs in the Mueller investigation article. Atsme📞📧 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Au contraire, all of the claims you dispute above are not speculation or allegation, but in fact are reported in RS. I have never heard of Bubblegate, but the article you are citing seems to be from today, as opposed to nearly a year of RS reporting on the Mueller investigation and the conspirators. For example, Oct 17: "The big problem for Trump is that Manafort was present at a meeting in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. That meeting in Trump Tower was also attended by Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law." [44] To act like that meeting didn't happen or hasn't been covered extensively in RS is giving POV push to Manafort's case. Andrevan@ 21:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan - please see the NYTimes breakdown. That meeting is drowning in speculation, and until it reaches dry land and surpasses the phase of being a conspiracy theory, there's simply no substantial evidence that Trump is directly connected or that the meeting was even noteworthy. The NYTimes stated in closing:
Finding a final answer, though, will likely be left to the special counsel. Democrats do not have subpoena authority, and Republicans have shown no interest in pressing for fuller records.
If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Mueller investigation...Atsme📞📧 22:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)- That NYT piece clearly says, "a 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between members of the Trump campaign and a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, attended the meeting, as did Paul Manafort, then the campaign chairman, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law." This is Trump-related, and other RS confirm this time and time and again. The claim that this is not relevant to Trump himself is even alluded to in the NYT piece you link in terms of discussing whether the "blocked number" was a call to Trump. There doesn't need to be judicial proof that Trump had specific knowledge of the meeting, it's still relevant to his claims of "no collusion" and "no obstruction" and that the investigation is a "witch hunt." Andrevan@ 22:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan - please see the NYTimes breakdown. That meeting is drowning in speculation, and until it reaches dry land and surpasses the phase of being a conspiracy theory, there's simply no substantial evidence that Trump is directly connected or that the meeting was even noteworthy. The NYTimes stated in closing:
- Au contraire, all of the claims you dispute above are not speculation or allegation, but in fact are reported in RS. I have never heard of Bubblegate, but the article you are citing seems to be from today, as opposed to nearly a year of RS reporting on the Mueller investigation and the conspirators. For example, Oct 17: "The big problem for Trump is that Manafort was present at a meeting in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. That meeting in Trump Tower was also attended by Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law." [44] To act like that meeting didn't happen or hasn't been covered extensively in RS is giving POV push to Manafort's case. Andrevan@ 21:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with JFG in that the investigation is ongoing. I'm of the mind that these indictments and guilty pleas should not be included in the Trump bio - they belong in the Mueller investigation article, and to make it NPOV compliant, all relevant views should be included. Where is the factual statement that was published in a high quality RS that formally or even informally indicts Trump as having a direct connection? Yes, Gates pleaded guilty to lying about Manafort, and for conspiring to defraud the U.S. via false statements regarding his status as a foreign agent. Did he say Trump was involved, and if so where is that report? Papadopoulos (briefly a foreign policy advisor) made material false statements and material omissions about his contacts with Kremlin-connected Russians - did he say Trump was involved? Flynn pled guilty to making false statements, did he testify under oath that Trump was involved? Manafort has not pled guilty to the charges against him, so in the US, one is innocent until proven guilty and the investigation is ongoing. Facts only, please. In addition to the aforementioned, we have a partisan divide over what I'll refer to as Bubblegate based on the linked article. To summarize, unless we present all relevant views, we're teetering on noncompliance with NPOV. With regards to the Manafort issue we are treading into NOTNEWS territory since it's all still based on allegations, journalistic opinion/speculation until after the trial. We must be careful about how the information is presented, but again, it doesn't belong in Trump's BLP; rather it belongs in the Mueller investigation article. Atsme📞📧 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't want to mention Flynn specifically by name, but the total impact of several guilty pleas and indictments IS relevant to Trump. To keep it out of the lead is giving cover to Trump and his public relations interest. NPOV means stating Trump's position "it's a politically motivated witch hunt" and then stating Mueller's action as it pertains thereto "Mueller has indicted and obtained guilty pleas from a number of members of Trump's campaign, and has indicated his desire to interview Trump himself." Andrevan@ 19:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Collusion seems a Democratic vaguery, instead of the legal term 'conspiracy'. I would suggest not leading with 'witch hunt' as a minor subpart of the denial, and per BLP guidance to write without dramatic bits. (It says conservatively, but that might be misread as right-wing). Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Should the lede mention obstruction?
(Sub-discussion extracted from above thread — JFG talk 18:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- We now say Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a witch hunt that should be terminated. I don't think that accurately reflects what he has said. To the extent possible we should use Trump's own words. Those words, repeated so often as to become catch phrases, are "NO COLLUSION!" and "witch hunt". He also repeatedly insists that the investigation is politically motivated. He rarely mentions obstruction of justice, and I haven't seen him use the word "terminated". In fact I think the calls to "wind down" or end the investigation have mostly come from his attorneys or members of his administration, not from Trump himself. How about this: "Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion, calling the investigation a politically motivated "witch hunt". --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Right. I think you should insert your text and we can take it from there. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, thank you, but no. We should agree on a text before inserting it. Some additional points that occurred to me in support of this wording: Trump always talks as if collusion was the only issue under investigation. He may even interpret "collusion" as meaning personal collusion by Trump himself, and that may be what he means with his continual denials - that there was no collusion BY HIM. If that's his understanding, then any collusion by members of his campaign is irrelevant to him, and his denials do not take them into account. That's why I think "he has repeatedly denied any collusion", without any embellishment about guilty pleas and such by campaign associates and without any mention of obstruction, best expresses what he has said. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with MelanieN's terse suggestion, although I'm fine with the current sentence too. The accusations of obstruction of justice have been prominent enough to be mentioned here as well, per DUE. Perhaps we can combine them, saying
Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically-motivated "witch hunt".
Thoughts? — JFG talk 16:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)JFG, yes, the ACCUSATIONS of obstruction are prominent, but his DENIALS of obstruction of justice - or even mentioning that issue - are few and far between. In describing his denial, we should only report what he has actually denied and not put words in his mouth. In this sentence we are not talking about what he has been accused of; we are talking about what he has denied. His denials virtually always consist of "there has been no collusion". In a search I could find only one citation, from January 2018, that was titled as Trump denying obstruction - and even then all he said was "I did everything properly". Obstruction is simply not a charge that he has paid any attention to, or made any effort to deny. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)--MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Since Andrevan has demonstrated, below, that Trump has specifically denied obstruction on several occasions, I now agree with your proposed wording here that includes his denial of "obstruction of justice".
- I'd be fine with MelanieN's terse suggestion, although I'm fine with the current sentence too. The accusations of obstruction of justice have been prominent enough to be mentioned here as well, per DUE. Perhaps we can combine them, saying
- SPECIFICO, thank you, but no. We should agree on a text before inserting it. Some additional points that occurred to me in support of this wording: Trump always talks as if collusion was the only issue under investigation. He may even interpret "collusion" as meaning personal collusion by Trump himself, and that may be what he means with his continual denials - that there was no collusion BY HIM. If that's his understanding, then any collusion by members of his campaign is irrelevant to him, and his denials do not take them into account. That's why I think "he has repeatedly denied any collusion", without any embellishment about guilty pleas and such by campaign associates and without any mention of obstruction, best expresses what he has said. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Right. I think you should insert your text and we can take it from there. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Trump has actually denied obstruction on several occasions[45][46] and it's been discussed by the media as well, so I strongly disagree with MelanieN's description above. I also strongly disagree that we should hew as close as possible to the subject's own words or catch phrases. What policy guidance is that inspired by? Andrevan@ 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) OK, Andrevan, thanks for the research. Seeing that, I now agree with JFG's proposed wording
Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically-motivated "witch hunt".
As for your "policy guidance" question, it seems pretty obvious that when you are trying to cite a statement or opinion to someone, such as "so and so denied it", you should stick as closely as possible to what they actually said, and not put words in their mouth or go beyond what they said. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) OK, Andrevan, thanks for the research. Seeing that, I now agree with JFG's proposed wording
- I like and support the proposed wording per you and JFG, but I think we need to be careful about the difference between citing a statement to someone, and giving them a public relations soapbox for spin and lies, with no rebuttal or fact checking done by reliable 3rd party sources. As per above, I believe we should outline that Trump has denied obstruction and called the investigation a politically motivated witch hunt. In the meantime, the investigation has racked up several points to the contrary. Andrevan@ 18:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thanks MelanieN. @Andrevan, Atsme, Galobtter, Mandruss, MrX, MONGO, and SPECIFICO: Can we proceed with this wording for now? (Surely it can and will be improved later…) @Scjessey: Sorry I forgot you in the mass-ping. — JFG talk 18:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically-motivated "witch hunt".
- Support - well done, and sincerely appreciate the productive collaboration. Atsme📞📧 18:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- OpposeSee no reason to mention this issue if the intro has no mention of the North Korea issue. In the foreign policy portion of the intro every talking point aside from possibly Trump conducting missle strikes in Syria after they used chemical weapons, is in fact all items his opposition disagree with Trump on.--MONGO 19:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
-
- Mongo, I don't understand your "oppose" comment. The question here is about the wording of a sentence saying that Trump denies having anything to do with Russian interference in the election. Are you really meaning to say that we should not include his denial? --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- See no reason to mention anything about the investigation(s) at all if we are omitting his biggest foreign policy issue of his presidency, namely North Korea. All these should be over at the article about his presidency anyways not in this bio, least not in the intro.--MONGO 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Mongo, I don't understand your "oppose" comment. The question here is about the wording of a sentence saying that Trump denies having anything to do with Russian interference in the election. Are you really meaning to say that we should not include his denial? --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks to me that we have enough agreement to insert this sentence into the lede, and I will do so. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support - I don't oppose this wording, but I do think that obstruction of justice is not as prominent an issues as collusion at this point. We may also want to include money laundering,[47][48][49][50][51][52] although I don't know if Trump has actually denied those allegations.- MrX 🖋 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - while "politically-motivated witch-hunt" does WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE well, I think this being a BLP it is more important to stick to WP:BLP, giving biographically important items and to write conservatively rather than inflammatory quotes. The details of the investigation are not important enough to his life or the article for the lead anyway. Just short and simple and plain please-- mentioning the investigation and his denial of collusion seems quite enough. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Should the article mention money laundering?
- There's been extensive RS discussion and circumstantial evidence to indicate a long history of money laundering. While we do not know the outcome, we do know this is under investigation. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it should be mentioned in this article, but maybe not in the lead section. Andrevan@ 22:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I absolutely oppose any mention of money laundering, either in the lede or in the article text. The special counsel is investigating the Russian interference in the election and anything which may arise in connection with that (such as obstruction of justice). That much we know. There has been a lot of speculation that the investigation will turn up money laundering, tax evasion, bribery, you name it - but speculation is what it is. There has been no indication from the special counsel's office that they are looking into anything along those lines. (SPECIFICO, you said "we do know this is under investigation." How do we know? Aside from speculation in the press?) --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, are you acting as an WP:INVOLVED editor or an impartial administrator on this matter? While I don't specifically think that we've come across good language or evidence to conclude as yet, your statement that this is all speculation is worrisome to me, since we have a number of relevant facts that do pertain to money laundering and other bank- and tax-related issues, which should be included in the article in some fashion, as many of them deal with Trump's businesses prior to the presidency[53][54] as well as his relationship with Rudy Giuliani prior. We do know that the Southern District of NY and the FBI raided Michael Cohen's office in connection with a slush fund and issues to do with loans and funds paid from major corporations[55][56] [57] [58]. We know there are issues involving major cash transactions for real estate that are tied to money laundering[59] [60] There are also issues involving Felix Sater [61] and the NRA[62] Wikipedia policy is that we cover how subjects appear in reliable sources. We can't synthesize or connect the dots, or speculate. But I'm confused by your assertion that the PRESS are speculating. The press aren't speculating, they are REPORTING. For example: "Those transcripts reveal serious allegations that the Trump Organization may have engaged in money laundering with Russian nationals," Mr Schiff said. [63] Andrevan@ 23:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously, Andrevan, I am WP:INVOLVED at this article, because I am here discussing content. I participate at many of these political articles, and I function there as a regular editor, not an administrator - a role that I am very clear about and that is well understood by the other editors here. I assume the same is true for you, at this article at least, since you are also here discussing content. My point in this discussion is simply this: Yes, many people believe or assume that Trump’s business has been involved in unsavory or illegal practices such as money laundering. It is possible that the Muller investigation, or the separate New York investigation involving Cohen, are looking into these issues. But we don’t KNOW whether they are, and nobody in a position to know has said so. (SPECIFICO said we "know" this is under investigation, but I haven't seen that evidence.) Some people have voiced their suspicions, but we don’t use unsupported suspicions in a BLP. Rep. Schiff suggested that Glenn Simpson may have made such allegations in his testimony to the intelligence committee, but that is not strong enough evidence for us to mention it in a BLP. We might be able to bring out some of these issues at the article The Trump Organization. But especially for purposes of this article, we mustn’t get ahead of the evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, are you acting as an WP:INVOLVED editor or an impartial administrator on this matter? While I don't specifically think that we've come across good language or evidence to conclude as yet, your statement that this is all speculation is worrisome to me, since we have a number of relevant facts that do pertain to money laundering and other bank- and tax-related issues, which should be included in the article in some fashion, as many of them deal with Trump's businesses prior to the presidency[53][54] as well as his relationship with Rudy Giuliani prior. We do know that the Southern District of NY and the FBI raided Michael Cohen's office in connection with a slush fund and issues to do with loans and funds paid from major corporations[55][56] [57] [58]. We know there are issues involving major cash transactions for real estate that are tied to money laundering[59] [60] There are also issues involving Felix Sater [61] and the NRA[62] Wikipedia policy is that we cover how subjects appear in reliable sources. We can't synthesize or connect the dots, or speculate. But I'm confused by your assertion that the PRESS are speculating. The press aren't speculating, they are REPORTING. For example: "Those transcripts reveal serious allegations that the Trump Organization may have engaged in money laundering with Russian nationals," Mr Schiff said. [63] Andrevan@ 23:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I absolutely oppose any mention of money laundering, either in the lede or in the article text. The special counsel is investigating the Russian interference in the election and anything which may arise in connection with that (such as obstruction of justice). That much we know. There has been a lot of speculation that the investigation will turn up money laundering, tax evasion, bribery, you name it - but speculation is what it is. There has been no indication from the special counsel's office that they are looking into anything along those lines. (SPECIFICO, you said "we do know this is under investigation." How do we know? Aside from speculation in the press?) --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, what about covering this article? [64] "Trump's casino ended up paying the Treasury Department a $477,000 fine in 1998 without admitting any liability under the Bank Secrecy Act." Or this one: [65] FinCEN Fines Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort $10 Million for Significant and Long Standing Anti-Money Laundering Violations Andrevan@ 21:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@MelanieN:I do not say that Mueller is investigating money laundering. I say there's substantial discussion and circumstantial evidence that have led to widespread discussion and suspicion of it. e.g. [66]. that does not seem undue. It's a lot more solid than chatter about how Trump pressured N. Korea, for example, or how Trump is worth $3.1 billion according to a third-tier "capitalist tool" business magazine, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- "cirmumstantial" means probably bad idea to have it in a BLP.--MONGO 01:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - lots of unfounded rumors from unnamed sources or speculations by partisan parties may well exist, but that does not make for a significant event or life choice of the Donald Trump Biography article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
-
- BLP needs factual events -- not fantasies. Without a Trump name on an actual indictment, this is just unsuitable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"his victory upset the expectations of polls and analysts."
This is idiotic and misleading wording. His victory did not upset the expectations of polls, it was within a normal polling error. His election upset the expectations of some analysts. His election also upset the expectations of data analysts within both campaigns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree somewhat. Maybe change it to upsetting pundits? I mean, it's true that 538 and other analysts were giving Hillary 80-90% odds of winning. Then again, that was before the impact of the Comey letter October surprise. Andrevan@ 19:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- 538 gave Trump a 28.6% chance to win on election night and had a piece days before the election noting, "Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch - awkward wording. The picture was murky, and particularly murky because of the vagaries of the electoral college. What was unexpected was the lopsidedness, less than 88,000 votes in three states deciding an election where the winner received 2.8 million (2.1%) less votes than the loser. Aside from that, the polls & the expectations of pundits may belong in the lead of the article on the 2016 general election and the individual campaigns, but not in Trump's general bio. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- By most accounts, this election was a historical upset, we need to mention this somehow. I agree that the previous wording put too much emphasis on pundits. Fact is that everyone was surprised. — JFG talk 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Accordingly, I called it a "surprise victory"[67] like most sources did. — JFG talk 14:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- A historical number of people were and are upset but whether the election was an upset, historical or otherwise, depends on who you ask. Anyway, more awkward wording: Can you be elected against someone? Campaign - yes; win - yes; elect - I don't think so. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- By most accounts, this election was a historical upset, we need to mention this somehow. I agree that the previous wording put too much emphasis on pundits. Fact is that everyone was surprised. — JFG talk 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
But the victory was not a "surprise victory". He had a 28% chance according to the most prominent forecaster. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Surprise" "shocking" or "upset" -- both by being a win and by the substantial electoral margin. Also in that Republicans in general beat expectations for Congressional races at the same time. Most of the coverage and most projections just before the election put Clinton at about 90% chance to win, and analysts were showing how unlikely the series states in question were that would be anything else. e.g. Huffington Post 3 October at 98%, The Independent 5 November at 99% , BBC 7 November at 84%, Reuters 7 November at 90%, CNN 7 November at 91%, NYTimes 8 November at 85%. Much of the post-election analysis was over how could the polling projecions have been so far wrong, in so many states. You can read more at the election article here and here "shocking" and "upset". CHeers Markbassett (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some of those are the same forecasts. Again, a 28% chance (538) and a 15% chance (NYT's Upshot) that something will occur is not surprising. Those are the same odds as hitting a 1 or a 2 (28%), or a 1 (15%), respectively on a dice. The correct language is "some analysts" and "some forecasters" (though I think it's dubious to refer to forecasters in Wiki voice, when most people consider 538 and the Upshot to be the premier forecasters and those two were not far off in their forecasts). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include "upset", "surprise", or similar wording -- here are some sources published right after the election that discuss the election being an upset, a surprise, or unexpected: [68][69][70][71] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Get real, folks. Trump’s victory was universally reported as a surprise [72] or stunning [73] or an upset [74]. Per Politico, it was The biggest upset in U.S. history (that’s probably a bit of an overstatement). But we would be totally distorting history if we pretended his win wasn’t against all expectations. (Even if one brave pollster did give him a 28% chance of winning.) Even 60% of Trump’s supporters hadn’t expected him to win.[75] I totally object to the suggestion to water it down to “some analysts” and “some forecasters” or similar language, because the reaction to his victory was universally surprise, per all Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. I think our current wording -
Trump's victory was considered a stunning political upset by most observers
- gets it just right. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC) - 538 isn't a "pollster", it's a forecaster and the by far most prominent one. The second most prominent, NY Times' Upshot blog, gave Trump a 15% chance. Journalists do not understand probabilities, polls and forecasts (a frequent subject on 538), which explains the absurdly overconfident news coverage prior to the election and the straight-up false reporting from news outlets after the election about what forecasts had said (the reporting by some reporters clearly demonstrated that they equated a 72% of winning to a 99% chance of winning). If the two most prominent forecasters gave Trump a 15-28% chance (with 538 clearly noting that Trump was within a normal polling error of winning), then "all reliable sources" did obviously not react with surprise to the fact that he narrowly won. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well we're not proposing "by most sophisticated observers". You may be right that the public underestimated the prior likelihood of Trump's victory, but the text refers to surprise and upset so that's consistent with unrealistic expectations being dashed. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe Nate Silver (538) wasn't totally STUNNED, since he had given Trump a decent chance - but he was about the only one who was merely surprised but not stunned. We are bound to go by the weight of coverage from what we normally consider Reliable Sources, and that weight is overwhelmingly what we have cited here: stunning upset, to the point where even Trump himself didn't expect to win. If we don't say it was a stunning upset, we will be pretty much the only ones saying so. But we are expected to follow the sources, not re-interpret them to report what we think they should have said. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- A 28% chance isn't a surprise. They are the same odds as hitting a 1 or 2 on a single dice throw rather than 3, 4, 5 or 6. The Upshot's forecast are the same odds as hitting a 1 on a single dice throw rather than 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. One outcome is more likely than the other, but neither outcome is stunning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe Nate Silver (538) wasn't totally STUNNED, since he had given Trump a decent chance - but he was about the only one who was merely surprised but not stunned. We are bound to go by the weight of coverage from what we normally consider Reliable Sources, and that weight is overwhelmingly what we have cited here: stunning upset, to the point where even Trump himself didn't expect to win. If we don't say it was a stunning upset, we will be pretty much the only ones saying so. But we are expected to follow the sources, not re-interpret them to report what we think they should have said. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well we're not proposing "by most sophisticated observers". You may be right that the public underestimated the prior likelihood of Trump's victory, but the text refers to surprise and upset so that's consistent with unrealistic expectations being dashed. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Boom! The exact same things I talked about is the subject of the 538 podcast episode released today. Nate Silver says explicitly that journalists do not understand polls in the first two minutes.[76] So, there's a conflict among reliable sources where the reliable sources least equipped to understand polls and probabilities say that Trump's win was stunning whereas the reliable sources most equipped to understand polls and probabilities (538, NYT's Upshot) gave Trump a decent chance to win. Why should we opt for the RS that are least equipped to understand polls, forecasts and probabilities rather than the reliable sources whose existence are centered around dealing with polls, forecasts and probabilities? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I guess this is where "preponderance" comes in. Most reliable sources, whether they were better equipped or not, say that Trump's election was a "stunning upset" or a variation thereof. It is also worth considering that precisely zero polls gave Donald Trump a snowball's chance in hell to win the election before the first primary, and polling is not the only basis for the "upset" description (which is why we use the term "analysts" as well). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I should add, I consider the existing language to be satisfactory, per MelanieN. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- A poll isn't a prediction tool like that. It's a snapshot of the electorate at a specific point in time. It's bizarre to believe that a poll released months prior to an election should reflect the election outcome. The correct language is that "forecasts considered a Clinton victory to be more likely than a Trump victory, with forecasters 538 and the New York Times' Upshot giving Trump a 28% and 15% chance respectively. On election day, 538 warned that Trump was within a normal polling error of winning. A systemic polling error across the Midwest gave Trump a narrow victory in several Midwestern states, giving him an edge in the electoral college. Trump's victory was widely considered surprising by pundits and news outlets, as well as to the Trump and Clinton campaigns." The text should of course be more concise, but that's the gist of what it should say, so as to not mislead readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is Monday morning quarterbacking. A preponderance of reliable sources say it was a "stunning upset" (or variation thereof). Now, we could add something like "widely considered at the time..." to give an appropriate historical perspective, I guess, but the gist of what it says now is fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think MelanieN's text captured the gist of public reaction. As to whether there were pollsters who have a well-developed professional sense of how surprised they are by a 1/4 or 1/7 outcome, that seems beyond the scope of what this sentence is contributing to the narrative. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, most people, even many Trump supporters, were very surprised that he won. Hillary was the overwhelming favorite to win and even the suggestion that Trump even had a possibility of winning would be met with astonishment and disbelief. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- A poll isn't a prediction tool like that. It's a snapshot of the electorate at a specific point in time. It's bizarre to believe that a poll released months prior to an election should reflect the election outcome. The correct language is that "forecasts considered a Clinton victory to be more likely than a Trump victory, with forecasters 538 and the New York Times' Upshot giving Trump a 28% and 15% chance respectively. On election day, 538 warned that Trump was within a normal polling error of winning. A systemic polling error across the Midwest gave Trump a narrow victory in several Midwestern states, giving him an edge in the electoral college. Trump's victory was widely considered surprising by pundits and news outlets, as well as to the Trump and Clinton campaigns." The text should of course be more concise, but that's the gist of what it should say, so as to not mislead readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Challenging "spygate" in lead
I'm challenging the recent edit(s) by User:Andrevan adding the following to the lead:
- Trump has said "Spygate" could be one of the largest political scandals in history.[1] Conservatives and progressives alike have said that the scope of Trump's scandals may be bigger than the Watergate scandal[2].
First, when Trump says something could be one of the largest X in history is nowhere near unique. His best friends will admit that hyperbole for him is a regular manner of speaking. Possibly this could fit somewhere in the body, but it has not been proven to be worthy of the lead. Second, the second sentence is not backed up by the source which merely says that conservatives say Spygate could be bigger than Watergate, but liberals say it is unfounded; neither talk about "the scope of Trump's scandals". --GRuban (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC).
- Alright. Perhaps, instead of removing or reverting altogether, you could have moved the content elsewhere and edited it to more closely reflect the source material. What I'd like to ultimately add to the lede is the idea that Donald Trump is the most scandal-ridden president in recent history. Andrevan@ 03:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering..spygate isn't a scandal of Trump, it is trump accusing the FBI - how that is supposed to be about Trump's scandals is beyond me, or how that it is important enough for the lead when it isn't even mentioned in the body. Actually, it'd be better if you'd even read the source - seriously, the USAToday source has nothing to do with the statement that Trump's scandals are bigger than watergate. We should probably add something about the various accusations trump has levelled in the body (e.g Obama this too), but anyhow, what you could add per your goal is "Trump's presidency has been characterized by many scandals and turmoil among Whitehouse staff and cabinet." At-least the latter portion about turmoil is supported by the body; but not the scandal portion, where you'd want to add that to the body first.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Alright. Perhaps, instead of removing or reverting altogether, you could have moved the content elsewhere and edited it to more closely reflect the source material. What I'd like to ultimately add to the lede is the idea that Donald Trump is the most scandal-ridden president in recent history. Andrevan@ 03:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Trump seethes over Russia probe, calls for end to 'Spygate". Boston Globe. May 23, 2018.
- ^ "Conservatives say alleged FBI 'spying' on Trump is bigger than Watergate". USA Today. May 23, 2018.
Before adding something like that to the lede, it would have to be in the article; that's the nature of ledes, to summarize the main points of the article. Do you want to draft up a paragraph or section about "Trump administration scandals"? We would certainly need clearer sourcing than that "Bubble" article, and it would probably wind up getting discussed here until there was consensus to include it. Also, I would not want to see us use Trump's latest buzzword "Spygate" anywhere; the word is pure propaganda, promoting a claim for which we have seen no evidence. AFAIK it has not been picked up by the general media, except in quotes attributed to Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with all of that, @Melanie. Andrevan@ 21:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN - "spygate" is in BBC as a term, and of course Fox news and such mention it. Should not be in BLP lead as it is not a major life event and BLP guidance is to write conservatively, and it just is not a significant part of the article. But please apply those same restraints to the 'money laundering' and other items trying to insert into the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Mark, a general point aside from the particulars of any of these proposed additions to the article -- they're not BLP issues. There may be due weight or recentism or other problems, but it's not a BLP problem to mention widely and reliably reported details about so public a figure. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"Racial views" need to be balanced
There were numerous discussions about Trump's purported racial views at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump. In particular, it was hotly debated whether that article included Trump's views on racism and race relations, or merely perceptions of racism by his critics. The jury is still out. See for example Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 2#The title chosen for the article. The examples chosen in that article tend to imply racist motives, but other examples from Trump's life tend to imply inclusiveness. Strangely enough, when we add a racist-sounding event, it gets vindicated, and when we add a clearly non-racist event, it gets discarded. Examples: Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Removal of Palm Beach clubs, Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Trump donated Wall Street office space to Jesse Jackson's PUSH Coalition. Compare these:
- Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio (a white man criticized for racist profiling): he's definitely racist!
- Trump pardoned Jack Johnson (a black man convicted on racist grounds): not a word on the "Racial views" page…
Such an attitude does not sound encyclopedic to me. — JFG talk 10:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's cherry picking. You want balance? American balance or global balance? By the standards of a majority of people in most countries outside the USA, Trump is, without any doubt at all, a racist himself, and smart enough to use racism as a political tool. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Cherry-picking goes both ways, and that's precisely what we should avoid as Wikipedians. Actually, Trump has attacked people irrespective of race, gender or political party. When he attacks a black politician like Barack Obama he is considered racist, and when he attacks a female politician like Hillary Clinton he is considered misogynist. When he attacks a conservative politician like Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz, he is considered a traitor to Republican values. When he attacks a veteran like John McCain he is considered disrespectful to the military. But when he praises Martin Luther King, when he hires Ben Carson, when he pardons Jack Johnson, is he racist? When he appoints Nikki Haley, Linda McMahon or Gina Haspel, is he a misogynist? When he wants a military parade, is he smearing the military? (Oh right, then he's a childish dictator…) Everything he does is viewed under a lens of evil symbolism, and that is quite puzzling to behold for a dispassionate outside observer of American politics. — JFG talk 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- That reads almost as if you're trying to prove that Trump is inconsistent and hypocritical. Is that your point? HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite: he seems very consistent in not caring about race, gender or political affiliation. And in my book, that's the exact opposite of a racist, a misogynist or a partisan hack. — JFG talk 11:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- JFG, It's helpful that you forthrightly concede that these issues puzzle you. That's much more constructive than saying they do not exist. But the consensus of editors here accepts RS reporting that these issues do indeed exist, and although they are at times complex, cloaked, or controversial, we are past the point of glib denial of any of them. SPECIFICO talk 11:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- JFG, the editors here are by and large well-read and thoughtful. When you promote your POV by claiming, e.g. that Arpaio's problem was "racial profiling" (fuzzy, controversial and political) rather than the serious crime for which a US court
sentenced him to prisonconvicted him, it's very unlikely that editors are going to seriously consider whatever parts of your argument may actually have some merit and result in article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 11:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)- Arpaio was never sentenced to prison. In fact, he was never sentenced at all. And if he had been sentenced to serve time, it would have been to jail, not prison. Facts, and knowledge of them, are important -- as well as being thoughtful and well read. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 11:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Is jail better than prison? Weird. Maybe it's some strange American thing. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Prison and jail are two very different types of incarceration with different legal involvement and government jurisdictions. Nothing weird about it and definitely not just an "American thing". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the arrogant, unhelpful response. They are NOT different things in my country. Why do you think I asked the question? Where in the world DO they differ? Got a formal definition? HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- In the US it is a somewhat loosely defined difference between a local place of incarceration such as one run by a city or municipality where inmates are either awaiting trial or serving short sentences that are usually not felonies whereby prisons are usually run by a state or the federal government and house inmates convicted to serve longer sentences (like more than a year) and/or felonies.[77]--MONGO 04:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- If it's any comfort, this distinction is also nonsense in the USA, where Federal facilities are uniformly called "prisons" and that's where folks chill after criminal contempt of Federal Court. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the arrogant, unhelpful response. They are NOT different things in my country. Why do you think I asked the question? Where in the world DO they differ? Got a formal definition? HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Prison and jail are two very different types of incarceration with different legal involvement and government jurisdictions. Nothing weird about it and definitely not just an "American thing". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Is jail better than prison? Weird. Maybe it's some strange American thing. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I will accommodate you by revising to "convicted him" - the meaning is the same and then you can reply to the substance of my remark -- or not. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Accommodation" was neither requested nor necessary. But, I am glad you accepted the correction in good faith. I saw the substance of your comments to be chastising JFG and reminding him editors are well read and thoughtful before you stated incorrectly the result of Arpaio's trial. Hence, I believe already commented on the substance when I pointed out the misinformation in your retelling of events. Plus, it's important for those reading this to not be mislead by the furthering of bad information, which is why I corrected you. That kind of good faith effort should be the focus and substance of most comments regarding encyclopedic knowledge, don't you think? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: I have no personal opinion about Joe Arpaio, never heard of him before his pardon came to the news. I strongly object to your trying to discredit my arguments by accusing me of "promoting my POV" because I wrote that Arpaio was indicted for "racial profiling". I was only reading what is documented in our articles about this man and his pardon, namely:
In the case of Melendres v. Arpaio, Arpaio's office was found to be racial profiling Latinos and ordered to stop. Arpaio was found to have violated the court order, resulting in a finding of criminal contempt against him.
The article does not mention any other indictment than contempt of court for refusing to answer charges of racial profiling and cease the practice. If there are other charges, please enlighten us and add them to the relevant articles. - Now this deflection is out of the way, I'd love to read comments about my actual point, which compares the pardon of a white man to the pardon of a black man, and wonders why an encyclopedic article or section on Trump's "racial views" should expound on the first and ignore the second. — JFG talk 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, your deflection is not "out of the way" because if you do not understand that you have again (this time very explicitly) misrepresented the facts and the RS accounts, then you should not be citing that matter in an editing discussion here. Note that this is based on an assumption that you have in good faith misunderstood the issue. As to your second point, the fact that you are holding "white" and "black" out as the relevant issues in a matter relating to US law or the Presidential power to grant a pardon, is itself a fundamentally racist POV and is precisely what we're trying to avoid here. The essence of prejudicial thinking and attitudes is to tag folks with race, religion, creed, or other classes when the actual facts on the table relate to the merits of a specific instance of action, law, or other principle. Again, this is not a disparagement of you or your motives, it's an indictment of the ideas and arguments you are trying to advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nice. I was countering your deflection, and I did not misrepresent anything. I won't argue further; readers of our dialogue can make up their own mind as to who is deflecting and how facts are represented. Plus I take note that you just called me a racist. Cool story, sis. — JFG talk 15:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- And speaking of "the merits of a specific instance of action", that was exactly my point. Was the pardon of Arpaio morally justified? Probably not. Was the pardon of Johnson morally justified? Definitely, absolutely, unambiguously yes. But we mustn't talk about it in Wikipedia because of the "Trump is a vile racist" trope. Sigh. — JFG talk 15:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nice. I was countering your deflection, and I did not misrepresent anything. I won't argue further; readers of our dialogue can make up their own mind as to who is deflecting and how facts are represented. Plus I take note that you just called me a racist. Cool story, sis. — JFG talk 15:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, your deflection is not "out of the way" because if you do not understand that you have again (this time very explicitly) misrepresented the facts and the RS accounts, then you should not be citing that matter in an editing discussion here. Note that this is based on an assumption that you have in good faith misunderstood the issue. As to your second point, the fact that you are holding "white" and "black" out as the relevant issues in a matter relating to US law or the Presidential power to grant a pardon, is itself a fundamentally racist POV and is precisely what we're trying to avoid here. The essence of prejudicial thinking and attitudes is to tag folks with race, religion, creed, or other classes when the actual facts on the table relate to the merits of a specific instance of action, law, or other principle. Again, this is not a disparagement of you or your motives, it's an indictment of the ideas and arguments you are trying to advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Arpaio was never sentenced to prison. In fact, he was never sentenced at all. And if he had been sentenced to serve time, it would have been to jail, not prison. Facts, and knowledge of them, are important -- as well as being thoughtful and well read. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 11:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite: he seems very consistent in not caring about race, gender or political affiliation. And in my book, that's the exact opposite of a racist, a misogynist or a partisan hack. — JFG talk 11:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- That reads almost as if you're trying to prove that Trump is inconsistent and hypocritical. Is that your point? HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Cherry-picking goes both ways, and that's precisely what we should avoid as Wikipedians. Actually, Trump has attacked people irrespective of race, gender or political party. When he attacks a black politician like Barack Obama he is considered racist, and when he attacks a female politician like Hillary Clinton he is considered misogynist. When he attacks a conservative politician like Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz, he is considered a traitor to Republican values. When he attacks a veteran like John McCain he is considered disrespectful to the military. But when he praises Martin Luther King, when he hires Ben Carson, when he pardons Jack Johnson, is he racist? When he appoints Nikki Haley, Linda McMahon or Gina Haspel, is he a misogynist? When he wants a military parade, is he smearing the military? (Oh right, then he's a childish dictator…) Everything he does is viewed under a lens of evil symbolism, and that is quite puzzling to behold for a dispassionate outside observer of American politics. — JFG talk 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- A good place to start is with multiple reliable sources that cover "other examples from Trump's life tend to imply inclusiveness" in a racial context, and that establish due weight. The case is not made by an editor using original research.- MrX 🖋 12:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah. And that Jesse Jackson nonsense has already soaked up plenty of editor time here and been put to bed. It was rejected. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The case is made by applying good editorial judgement and non-partisan views. Trump’s views have been expressed predominantly from a one-sided perspective; i.e., journalistic opinion and publication of the views of Trump’s detractors (biased) which appears to dominate for various reasons, but that does not address the issues of DUE, BALANCE or NPOV overall...the latter of which states that we include all relevant views. Omission of relevant views is noncompliant with policy. We also need to focus less on journalistic opinion and look to more academic opinion. For example, a view that is relevant and encyclopedic was presented by Carol Swain in Campus Reform. Include it using in-text attribution, and that is also how we should include other views per policy instead of lump sum news views that tend to be political in nature. An interesting article that speaks to the latter was published in Psychology Today but I’m sure there are higher quality sources available, although the author of that article is Ruth C. White, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.S.W. who passes the RS source test. Also keep in mind that if we’re going to start labeling people racist, there is hardline evidence in the Congressional record dating back to the 50s and 60s, and some of those people are still in office or public life today - just look to see who voted in opposition of integration and supported segregation. Atsme📞📧 14:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC) PS: I can’t remember the academic sources Drmies suggested to me a while back or if they were related to racial views but they were also academic, so if relevant here, maybe he will weigh-in.
- One of those sources has nothing to do with the subject of this article and the other merely shows that a conservative television analyst and former professor of political science has an opinion which is at odds with the widespread view that Trump makes racially provocative remarks and has taken actions perceived as racially motivated. There are also a few scholars comprising a tiny minority who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. - MrX 🖋 14:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"the other merely shows that a conservative television analyst and former professor of political science has an opinion"
Let's be sure we are concise here (because knowledge and facts are important for people writing an encyclopedia) and give an honest perspective: that conservative television analyst and former professor at Vanderbilt is a Black woman with a Ph.D. She grew up in poverty, dropped out of high school, was a single mother of three at age 21 who supported herself and her kids by working at McDonald's while getting her GED. She went to community college while still raising her children and continued on to get her undergrad and graduate degrees, eventually achieving her Ph.D. and after that, a Master's in Legal Studies from Yale Law. All of that background, all of that education, and having her scholarly work cited by two Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court makes her "opinion" on Trump and racism/misogynism quite relevant as well as important. And certainly much more relevant and important than anyone who is not Black, not a woman, wasn't raised impoverished/extremely disadvantaged and has no proof of Trump's alleged racism/misogyny while maintaining he is a racist sexist. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- One of those sources has nothing to do with the subject of this article and the other merely shows that a conservative television analyst and former professor of political science has an opinion which is at odds with the widespread view that Trump makes racially provocative remarks and has taken actions perceived as racially motivated. There are also a few scholars comprising a tiny minority who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. - MrX 🖋 14:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- This conversation needs to be closed. It was started by a sock puppet. The consensus and the reliable sources all link birtherism to racism. There was a recent RFC and consensus was reached on some things; no new consensus is reached here. That's not up for dispute. If someone has a concrete point to make make it, otherwise let's discuss real article issues and not abstract stuff. Andrevan@ 18:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the birtherism thread should be closed, both because of the socking and because it's kinda pointless. However, the present thread about Trump's racial views in general should remain open because the conversation is only starting, and the sock is not involved in it; accordingly I have changed it to a level-2 header. — JFG talk 20:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- +1 agree with JFG. I started reading the Racial Views section in this article, and the first thing that caught my eye was the 1st sentence in the 3rd paragraph which is clearly spun to support a particular POV as the following will demonstrate:
- First sentence in WP article states:
Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists.[290][291]
“They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
- See 2018 report by the Center for Immigration Centers, and this BBC report. I think the paragraph needs to reflect what editors are obligated to include per NPOV (WEIGHT & BALANCE) and BLP. There is far too much omission, even when it's included in the cited sources as what I just demonstrated. Atsme📞📧 21:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Adding New York Times, 2016 ICE stats, USA Today, and whatever else you want to read. 00:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Are you saying that we should include, "and some I assume are good people"? I'm all for that. Gandydancer (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- You think using a source with a 'study' that has been debunked and labeled an anti-immigrant hate group provides "weight and balance"? You believe listing a story from the BBC about a drug tunnel proves that "Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists"? I have to wonder what kind of thought process one has to have to believe these are NPOV. Dave Dial (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying to cite the sources I included - you're free to skip the ones you don't like or read none at all - but please keep your comments focused on the omission of material that was in the already cited material, and not the thought process of other editors. Atsme📞📧 00:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Atsme, you seem to be saying that because there are stories of actual drug trafficking and cartels, and immigration enforcement, that therefore Trump's comment about Mexican immigrants is justified. What I think is important to understand is that Trump's blanket statements about immigrants being rapists or traffickers are racist regardless of the statistics of how many people that statement actually describes. Even if 51% of Mexicans were criminals it would still be racist. Do you disagree? I realize we're veering off-track a bit relative to issues of sourcing or article text, but I'm really shocked that you are offering this material as proof that Trump was making a defensible, and not racially-motivated point. Andrevan@ 00:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
"Even if 51% of Mexicans were criminals it would still be racist."
Xenophobic, maybe. Racist? No. Talking about criminals who come from other countries is not "racist". If he had mentioned the color of their skin, I could see the racism tag being applied. But commenting on the people coming into a country illegally from another country is not racist. After all, if Trump had commented on anyone coming here from Canada illegally who committed crimes -- that would not be considered racist, would it? Of course not. This is an encyclopedia. The hope is that editors helping to write the encyclopedia would know the difference between racism and possible xenophobia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)- Here's the thing - it doesn't matter if you or I can split hairs successfully about whether the true descriptor is "xenophobic" or "racist." It matters what the sources say. If there's a reasonable dispute about what the sources say we can hash that out in depth, and ultimately consensus wins the day. The sources tend to describe Trump and his actions, behaviors, and other stuff as racist. If there's a minority view that it is "xenophobic" only, that may merit a sentence in a sub-section depending on how WP:FRINGE it is. Andrevan@ 01:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)What reliable sources (and not opinion pieces) declare Trump's comments as quoted above to be racist? And if the actual term for his comments are xenophobic, who really cares if it's a minority view or not? I know I don't on a personal basis. Right is right, regardless of whether it's accepted by a minority or majority of people overall. And honestly, that's a big part of the problem with consensus decisions in Wikipedia: a consensus borne out of the majority being dead wrong doesn't make the minority view any less correct or true. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- You appear to be saying you reject NPOV. If so, you should not edit articles where you do not accept the consensus view. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Here's the thing - it doesn't matter if you or I can split hairs successfully about whether the true descriptor is "xenophobic" or "racist." It matters what the sources say. If there's a reasonable dispute about what the sources say we can hash that out in depth, and ultimately consensus wins the day. The sources tend to describe Trump and his actions, behaviors, and other stuff as racist. If there's a minority view that it is "xenophobic" only, that may merit a sentence in a sub-section depending on how WP:FRINGE it is. Andrevan@ 01:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Atsme, you seem to be saying that because there are stories of actual drug trafficking and cartels, and immigration enforcement, that therefore Trump's comment about Mexican immigrants is justified. What I think is important to understand is that Trump's blanket statements about immigrants being rapists or traffickers are racist regardless of the statistics of how many people that statement actually describes. Even if 51% of Mexicans were criminals it would still be racist. Do you disagree? I realize we're veering off-track a bit relative to issues of sourcing or article text, but I'm really shocked that you are offering this material as proof that Trump was making a defensible, and not racially-motivated point. Andrevan@ 00:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying to cite the sources I included - you're free to skip the ones you don't like or read none at all - but please keep your comments focused on the omission of material that was in the already cited material, and not the thought process of other editors. Atsme📞📧 00:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the birtherism thread should be closed, both because of the socking and because it's kinda pointless. However, the present thread about Trump's racial views in general should remain open because the conversation is only starting, and the sock is not involved in it; accordingly I have changed it to a level-2 header. — JFG talk 20:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how you got that out what I said, but no -- that's not what I'm saying at all. My editing history should speak for itself in that regard. I go with the consensus view and fight for NPOV constantly, full stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that view even rises to the level of FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Why don't the people that feel the article is biased add some edits to the Analysis section at the Racial views article. There are around 12 comments by recognizable names that say he is a racist. People that are asking for balance could start there by adding equally well-known people who say he's not. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- True we should be trying to prove a negative. Everyone is racist these days, kind of sad. Similar to a lot of articles about right wing issues transformed into the derogatory alt-right with challenges to find sources that say the subject is not alt-right. PackMecEng (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Why don't the people that feel the article is biased add some edits to the Analysis section at the Racial views article. There are around 12 comments by recognizable names that say he is a racist. People that are asking for balance could start there by adding equally well-known people who say he's not. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that view even rises to the level of FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's my take on it: The part of Trump's quote that gave it proper context - And some, I assume, are good people - was omitted, and it belongs in the article. It is not our job to "justify" anything or RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and we should not be stating opinions as facts or cherrypicking quotes, or stating seriously contested assertions as facts, we state them as opinions. Contentious labels or value-laden labels are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
- The 1st sentence in that paragraph, which is stated in WikiVoice, omits part of the quote which changed it's context. That needs to be fixed.
- The 2nd from last sentence in that same paragraph states: "His remarks were condemned as racist worldwide,"[by whom?] which is also in WikiVoice, and that needs to be replaced with in-text attribution.
- The 2nd half of that sentence states "as well as by several members of Congress."[by whom?]
I looked for the quotes in the 3 cited sources and all I found are allegations of racism by Congressional Democrats and the statement issued by the Haitian government. Following is the source breakdown:
- Vox (1st cited source) supports neither the statement "several members of Congress" nor around the world condemnation.
- WaPo (2nd cited source) reported that Gutiérrez (D-ILL) said, "The answer is this racist outburst of the president." That was the only statement about anyone in Congress using that term that I could find in that source. Keep in mind, the statement itself is alleged, and what is considered a seriously contested assertion (by Trump & others who attended that meeting) so it falls under WP:REDFLAG;
- Politico, (the 3rd cited source), reported that the Haitian gvt. issued a statement "that Trump’s remarks reflect a “racist view of the Haitian community”" - referencing an alleged comment that was denied. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tweeted, “I could call @realDonaldTrump’s comments racist, vile and disgusting because that is what they are." Black Caucus chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.) and Rep. Richard Nadler (D-N.Y.) condemned his racist statement. All I've found so far is partisan-based. Haiti's statement doesn't support "condemned as racist worldwide" to be stated in WikiVoice.
In summary, the aforementioned is why I believe the 3rd paragraph needs to be rewritten to (1) accurately reflect what the cited sources say, (2) be compliant with V regarding WP:REDFLAG challenged claims "with an apparent conflict of interest". Per the Neutrality section in V, (and NPOV) ...use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation.
Atsme📞📧 02:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed and support the change. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose rewriting para, because there are a zillion more reliable sources that we can add to support the description of that sentence as racist. But if what you're asking is to add that "and some I assume..." part, fine, go ahead. Andrevan@ 02:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Here is a link for There's no other word but racist': Trump's global rebuke for 'shithole' remark[78] Are you sure that it's a good idea to include the names of all of the (many) congress members that commented on the shithole remark? I have no prob adding the "and I'm sure..." wording. Gandydancer (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Gandy, an example (very rough) could be something like...several Congressional Democrats responded to Trump's alleged *&%@* remark, including Gutiérrez (D-ILL) who said, "The answer is this racist outburst of the president" (putting it in the context of whatever his comment was in response to) or something along that line - or...instead of Gutiérrez go with Black Caucus chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.) and Rep. Richard Nadler (D-N.Y.) condemned Trump's racist statement ....(quote) yada yada." Remember when Obama said Libya was a *&#@ show? It was downplayed pretty quickly before it became an issue - media defended it. All forgotten today. Anyway, I would not venture into trying to make Trump's alleged comment appear to be more than what it is as far as long term encyclopedic material goes. We still have a few more years left to add content. Atsme📞📧 05:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Atsme, re the remarks from Congress, other than changing "several" to "many", which is more accurate (we list nine at the racial views article but many were trimmed when the list grew too long), I see no reason to changes the wording. However if you feel that it would be more balanced to add a name I'd suggest John Lewis. As for comparing Trump's remarks to one that Obama made, there is no comparison IMO. Obama condemned rich white nations for the mess/shitstorm in Libya while Trump called several black nations shitholes which resulted in worldwide condemnation. Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fact: Democrats are the ones calling Trump's alleged statement racist and that's what we are obligated to keep in perspective and out of WikiVoice. We can simply say "several Congressional Democrats responded to Trump's alleged *&%@* remark as being racist" which complies with NPOV and BLP policy. While there may be no perceived comparison between the two statements, the facts I attempted to make known are (1) Obama actually said those words, he never denied saying them, and the media agreed with him, regardless of his reasons, excuses or whether or not anyone believed it and (2) in Trump's case, the statement was repeatedly denied, the allegations were made by his opponents, and there is no factual evidence that he actually said those words, much less in the context his opposition believes they were said. We are discussing the inclusion of racist allegations against a BLP based on allegations made by his opponents. Let's at least try to get this BLP right by attributing the bias per policy. I'm not arguing for exclusion, I'm arguing for DUE and BALANCE because like it or not, we're still dealing with an unsupported allegation that lacks evidence - it's a he said/she said allegation - and the denials are as equal in weight as the allegations. Atsme📞📧 16:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Atsme, To add Democrat's congressional reaction would be fine with me as it is more accurate. As for your memory of the incident, it is far from accurate. Here is an overview of it: [79] If you are calling the incident a lie made up to harm Trump you are calling an awful lot of people liars, including people who are not known for lying. Whereas Trump is famous for his lies. Perhaps there were some who saw it as a he said/she said incident but by and large the world did not. The heads of nations responded; even a UN spokesperson responded with condemnation. This incident in no way even comes close to a comparison to the Obama's statement. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment:
"And some, I assume, are good people."
If anything, that makes Trump sound even more of a racist, so add it by all means. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC) - Since we’re now continuing the discussion as if it hadn’t been started by a sockpuppet and as if this former subsection were a new and separate discussion, and since - with references to the closed discussion in the mix - it got too convoluted to tell who was responding to whom or what, just adding this opinion below what's here right now.
- JFG: This is not the Racial views of Donald Trump article, so you may want to move your arguments concerning that page over there. Also: "…Joe Arpaio, never heard of him before his pardon came to the news." So the Stephen Colbert persona was right: "Wikipedia - the encyclopedia where you can be an authority even if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about." (Let me help: CNN, NPR, in case you want to continue this on the other page. Arpaio wasn’t just criticized for racist profiling, a court ordered him to stop racial profiling practices, and he was convicted of contempt of court because he ignored the orders (he just can't be punished for it). BTW, having been pardoned doesn’t make Arpaio innocent, and it doesn’t wipe his conviction off the records.)
- There is an archived discussion from four months ago; this looks very much like a continuation of it so it should be unarchived and continued properly.
- Balance? As in, "OK, so he makes racist remarks all the time, but we need to balance that by adding that he doesn’t mean it because it’s just Trump-speak, and we all know he’s not racist because he says so." I
had a good laugh atwas a bit puzzled by the proposed "balancing" of the first sentence by adding "And some, I assume, are good people." That sentence just drove home what Trump was doing, i.e., generalizing (Mexicans in general are this and that), and that’s exactly what the current sentence expresses; Trump didn’t say ALL, and Wikipedia doesn’t say that he did. The added sentence (saying he’s guessing based on little or no evidence that some may not be) makes it worse, so go for it. Nah, just kidding; it’s fine the way it reads now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- To your first point, that's exactly what I said after reading all the Arpaio articles we have: he was
indictedconvicted (not sentenced as somebody pointed out above) for contempt of court after refusing to answer charges of racial profiling and stopping the practice. Some other editors mentioned unspecified "serious crimes" and I invited them to bring those to the relevant articles if any. Now, once again, why do y'all only talk about Arpaio's pardon and not about Jack Johnson's pardon? (third time I'm asking, and all I hear is crickets). — JFG talk 13:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)- Sylvester Stallone recommended the pardon to him, a pardon is not an annulment of the conviction, and the dead man probably doesn't care. Maybe Trump would apologize for his very public condemnation of the Central Park Five if Sylvester Stallone were to tell him that that was the right thing to do. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Arpaio was convicted, not merely indicted. The case did not enter the sentencing phase because of the presidential pardon, but the conviction still stands. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- To your second point, this discussion is legitimate here because the "Racial views" section takes up a significant amount of real estate on Trump's main bio, and it looks slanted because it only mentions accusations of racism citing various incidents, while deliberately ignoring other events that would speak against racial animus in Trump's actions. Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I'd rather have a proper discussion of bias on this talk page rather than fighting over NPOV tags in the article text. — JFG talk 13:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- To your first point, that's exactly what I said after reading all the Arpaio articles we have: he was
Not discussing article improvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs) 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it. |
"Sorry, Wink, but my words conveyed absolutely none of the accusation you imputed to them. As I stated above, "It's good to know you aren't accusing JFG of intentionally misrepresenting the truth and attempting to bias readers via that alleged misrepresentation."-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
|
- @JFG:, to resume the editing discussion, now that you've hatted various editors' remarks, let's get back to what is on the table, given that you've read everything in this thread prior to your inexplicable comment about nobody demonstrating a "serious crime". Now that you have conceded that, in the matter of Arpaio, we are discussing a person convicted of criminal contempt of court, a felony under US Federal law -- do you deny that this is a "serious crime"? If so, this confuses and biases the conversation, deflecting discussion away from the core issues raised above that might lead to constructive improvement of article text. A felony is by definition a serious crime. Did you not know that when -- after reading this entire thread you referred to "unspecified serious crimes"? Thanks SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- You seem more astute than I am regarding criminal vocabulary of the U.S. judicial system; I'll defer to your expertise. In your prior remarks, I had the impression that you alluded to other "serious crimes" that I would have failed to notice. That does not seem to be the case, thanks for the clarification. — JFG talk 20:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Good, thanks. Note that in my oft-stated concern about your use of English to insinuate POV in politics articles, I have not said this was an intentional deception. I have noted that the bias always seems to align with a particular pro-Trump viewpoint, but by itself this would not prove malicious intent. I do think that it would be helpful if you would try to be more receptive to the comments you get about such issues here. Small twists of language and sentence structure can make a huge difference in these American Politics articles, whereas the wording is not anywhere near as critical in most other topic areas on WP. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- You seem more astute than I am regarding criminal vocabulary of the U.S. judicial system; I'll defer to your expertise. In your prior remarks, I had the impression that you alluded to other "serious crimes" that I would have failed to notice. That does not seem to be the case, thanks for the clarification. — JFG talk 20:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @JFG:, to resume the editing discussion, now that you've hatted various editors' remarks, let's get back to what is on the table, given that you've read everything in this thread prior to your inexplicable comment about nobody demonstrating a "serious crime". Now that you have conceded that, in the matter of Arpaio, we are discussing a person convicted of criminal contempt of court, a felony under US Federal law -- do you deny that this is a "serious crime"? If so, this confuses and biases the conversation, deflecting discussion away from the core issues raised above that might lead to constructive improvement of article text. A felony is by definition a serious crime. Did you not know that when -- after reading this entire thread you referred to "unspecified serious crimes"? Thanks SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Strikes on Syria undue for lede?
The lede section currently mentions the two missile strikes on Syrian infrastructure in retaliation for chemical weapons attacks. As evoked in an earlier discussion, these events were one-off actions, and as such they do not look notable enough to be included as a key foreign policy event. I would suggest to remove this sentence. What do my fellow editors think? — JFG talk 13:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude - I encourage editors - please - go read the bios of past presidents - eventually, this bio will end-up along the same lines as those of former presidents in size and presentation - and those presidents served 2 terms. Unless the plan is to start Trumpipedia, and I imagine he'd like nothing more, we cannot include all of his actions as president in his personal bio. It's quite obvious that even Presidency of Donald Trump is going to need trimming to keep it inline with statements of fact, and less journalistic opinion (currently news style instead of/should be encyclopedic). Content forks will be created, and that's where some of this outlying material needs to go - keep relevant material in relevant articles, and clean-up the problematic syntax and challenged spin, such as what I've pointed out above. WP:NOTNEWS:
While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion
and regarding the syntax and MOS:Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
Wikinews and WikiTribune are thataway. ↗ Atsme📞📧 14:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC) - Exclude. As JFG pointed out, these are one-offs and because of that, the content is not lead appropriate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude - this is his BLP, so the item does not even belong in the article let alone in the lead. The Presidency article might get a minot mention of it -- but I do not think that would make it a lead item there. Markbassett (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude - I encourage editors - please - go read the bios of past presidents - eventually, this bio will end-up along the same lines as those of former presidents in size and presentation - and those presidents served 2 terms. Unless the plan is to start Trumpipedia, and I imagine he'd like nothing more, we cannot include all of his actions as president in his personal bio. It's quite obvious that even Presidency of Donald Trump is going to need trimming to keep it inline with statements of fact, and less journalistic opinion (currently news style instead of/should be encyclopedic). Content forks will be created, and that's where some of this outlying material needs to go - keep relevant material in relevant articles, and clean-up the problematic syntax and challenged spin, such as what I've pointed out above. WP:NOTNEWS:
Syria two occasions -> two strikes
@JFG: pinging due to refactoring into separate section. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- related problem - recent "copy edit": JFG, you made what you marked as a "copy edit" that changed the meaning of the article text. You removed the reference to "two occasions" and replaced it with "two strikes". Two strikes could easily be (mis)interpreted as referring to two salvos on a single occasion. Please restore the "two occasions" text you removed. We may decided to strike this from the lede, but meanwhile the meaning should not have been changed under edit summary of "copy edit." Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I did not remove "two occasions". Prior text said "twice".[81] New text is equivalent. — JFG talk 19:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's now ambiguous as to whether it was one order for two strikes or two orders for one strike each. The question is whether that's important. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- JFG, you're simply denying my complaint based on what? That I paraphrased? Once again, this feels like deflection on a straightforward matter. As Mandruss I believe has confirmed, the explicit clear meaning is now ambiguous and unclear to at least some of our readers. That was my initial point and so I once again ask you to restore the clear version you "copy-edited". SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I did not remove "two occasions". Prior text said "twice".[81] New text is equivalent. — JFG talk 19:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Coal
Why doesnt the article mention Trump support of coal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.215.40 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC) De-shouted and removed 22 of 23 question marks per WP:IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I dunno. Because it's super embarrassing? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not helpful. Also not necessarily accurate. (Personal attack removed) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: For the record, I am not an American; however, for the last seventeen years I have lived in "The Coal State". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Then for my comment above, I accept responsibility for making a completely wrong judgement re: your home-status. I was under the false belief you lived across the pond. Of course then, you are aware of what people in and outside the industry feel from a personal, first hand perspective. You have my sincere apologies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: For the record, I am not an American; however, for the last seventeen years I have lived in "The Coal State". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not helpful. Also not necessarily accurate. (Personal attack removed) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources mentioning the steps he took to "support coal," whatever that means? In the last quarter of 2017, coal jobs and production were down. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actions don't always indicate support. Support is also an expression, not just a deed or action taken. Trump has been vocally for coal production and use in the past. All that considered, I'm not sure that coal itself needs to be singled out, although it could be mentioned (if not already) in regard to his energy policy in general. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like a minor thing; place it in Energy policy of the Trump administration or some such. Undue for the bio. — JFG talk 19:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Does not belong in his WP:BLP. If this is something to do with his actions as President, then the article Presidency of Donald Trump might get a minor mention, but unless he has significant personal involvement it should not go here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not particularly a minor thing. It's one of his fave campaign and public speaking narratives how he's going to put all the great American hard-working coal miners back to work and coal is coming back. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Add note about House & Senate investigations
"Similar investigations were begun in the House Intelligence Committee, which closed concluding there was no collusion, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is ongoing." Andrevan@ 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- That would need to be more like, "The House Intelligence Committee opened a similar investigation, but it was terminated by the Republican majority, who stated that there was no collusion. A parallel Senate Intelligence Committee investigation is ongoing as of May, 2018." SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good Andrevan@ 18:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- OK with me. May as well insert. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Take a look at what Time reported - they quoted the HIC:
“While the committee found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government, the investigation did find poor judgment and ill-considered actions by the Trump and Clinton campaigns.”
Of course, it's no surprise the Democrats would object and call foul - the same would happen in reverse - but we have to ask ourselves, where is the evidence? If they have it, turn it over to Mueller because he doesn't have any, either. The articles of our past presidents are excellent guidelines - especially Barrack Obama which was promoted to FA. It wouldn't hurt to refer to it every now and then, and I would think it would be quite helpful to review the discussions that took place during the FARs. Atsme📞📧 19:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Take a look at what Time reported - they quoted the HIC:
- OK with me. May as well insert. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good Andrevan@ 18:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if I left you with the impression I objected. APPROVE <--- does that help? I should have stated that first but for good measure I added that the HIC admonished both sides, and would not object to using their conclusion as in-text attribution with the added material. Atsme📞📧 19:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: Where do you suggest to insert this? — JFG talk 19:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- In the lead, directly after Trump's claim of "no collusion." Andrevan@ 20:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Would look a bit overly detailed there, wouldn't you say? Surely can be mentioned in the "Investigations" section, which needs some update and text improvement anyway. — JFG talk 21:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- In the lead, directly after Trump's claim of "no collusion." Andrevan@ 20:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Repeat sentence challenged
@MrX: About your revert,[82] here was my rationale:
- The article says, when discussing Trump's "shitholes" comment:
His remarks were condemned as racist worldwide, as well as by several members of Congress.
Two lines later, we say practically the same thing:Trump's racially insensitive statements have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world.
I thought that sounded redundant, so I trimmed it. You do point out that the first instance only talks about the "shitholes" incident, while the latter is more generic. Perhaps we could keep just the generic version then? I don't think it makes much difference, because the international outcry was rather focused on the shitholes incident. - The Vox source does not talk about international condemnation, which is why it is superfluous here, as the sentence is already supported by three very good sources.
Would you agree to restore my edit, or do you have an alternate suggestion to resolve the above two concerns? — JFG talk 20:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just to point out the discussion above is in regard to this same topic. Can we merge them for local consensus or should we call an RfC and skip the middleman arguments? I'm willing to do whatever is best to find resolution with minimal argument...Atsme📞📧 21:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, since there is no consensus right now about Trump or racial issues or the article text involving such, the stable version should stand. An RfC would be out of order at the current time. We need to discuss in further depth the considerations and concerns being raised. For example, there are a million Google results for trump racist shithole, many of which are reliable sources in 3rd party authoritative voice. Similarly there are many sources for the condemnation of the world, and so on. We can discuss which sources we prefer. I'm trying to find if there had been a prior discussion on this or another article about the reliability of Vox.Andrevan@ 21:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can all agree on a couple of things that Atsme and I discussed. She correctly said that the Democratic congress called the remarks racist, so that word could be added. I correctly said that more than "several" members of congress condemned the remarks. (See our discussion above). Perhaps the wording could be changed to "a number of"? Gandydancer (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, Republican congressmen have attacked Trump's racism many times. Lindsey Graham said, "America is an idea, not a race,”[83] In the aftermath of Charlottesville, Orrin Hatch and Marco Rubio both had critical comments[84] Andrevan@ 21:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps...though I did not find any Republican using the word "racist" following this incident, though I could have missed some. Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Utah Republican Rep. Mia Love, whose family came from Haiti, called the president's comments "unkind, divisive [and] elitist." They "fly in the face of our nation's values. This behavior is unacceptable from the leader of our nation," she said. [85] Andrevan@ 21:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- So it looks like she refrained from calling those comments "racist", as Gandydancer pointed out. Thus I would have no objection to qualifying Congresspeople's condemnation as "Democrats". But I can also live without it, that is not such an important distinction, as this shitstorm did not look like a partisan issue. — JFG talk 22:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Utah Republican Rep. Mia Love, whose family came from Haiti, called the president's comments "unkind, divisive [and] elitist." They "fly in the face of our nation's values. This behavior is unacceptable from the leader of our nation," she said. [85] Andrevan@ 21:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps...though I did not find any Republican using the word "racist" following this incident, though I could have missed some. Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, Republican congressmen have attacked Trump's racism many times. Lindsey Graham said, "America is an idea, not a race,”[83] In the aftermath of Charlottesville, Orrin Hatch and Marco Rubio both had critical comments[84] Andrevan@ 21:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can all agree on a couple of things that Atsme and I discussed. She correctly said that the Democratic congress called the remarks racist, so that word could be added. I correctly said that more than "several" members of congress condemned the remarks. (See our discussion above). Perhaps the wording could be changed to "a number of"? Gandydancer (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, since there is no consensus right now about Trump or racial issues or the article text involving such, the stable version should stand. An RfC would be out of order at the current time. We need to discuss in further depth the considerations and concerns being raised. For example, there are a million Google results for trump racist shithole, many of which are reliable sources in 3rd party authoritative voice. Similarly there are many sources for the condemnation of the world, and so on. We can discuss which sources we prefer. I'm trying to find if there had been a prior discussion on this or another article about the reliability of Vox.Andrevan@ 21:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just to point out the discussion above is in regard to this same topic. Can we merge them for local consensus or should we call an RfC and skip the middleman arguments? I'm willing to do whatever is best to find resolution with minimal argument...Atsme📞📧 21:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: I don't think anybody is questioning the reliability of Vox as a source; I certainly am not. All I'm saying is that the cited Vox article by Zack Beauchamp does not support the sentence it is tacked on, as it says nothing about international or even domestic condemnation of Trump's remarks. Because we have several other great sources supporting this sentence, we can dispense with citing Vox here. — JFG talk 22:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @JFG:. My suggestion would be to change the first occurrence of "condemned" to "characterized" or "criticized", and change "worldwide" to "widely". Something like
"His remarks were widely-characterized as racist, including by several members of Congress."
How's that sound (to anyone)?- MrX 🖋 21:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)- Listen to Graham's own words - CNN interview summarizes it. This section is about racism, not the opinion of his detractors, although we do include them with intext attribution. Include what Graham says but make sure it is a factual quotation of his statement as relevant to this section regarding racism. Atsme📞📧 21:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Graham attacked Trump for what were described in 3rd party voice by many RS as "racially charged comments." Mr. Graham referred to Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot." It's true that he walked back his critique and said he doesn't believe Trump is racist per se. We can include that too. Andrevan@ 21:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand the relevance of Graham's words to a sentence that summarizes a broad reaction. What are we talking about?- MrX 🖋 22:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, some editors mentioned Graham as an example of a Republican criticizing Trump; I don't think it's necessary to name names. — JFG talk 22:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Based on the diffs, I thought this was about his *&6^@ comment and the responses from Democrats that followed. If we're going to ID the HIC as majority Republican, then every decision should follow suit - the majority of Democrats considered his comment racist. Someone said Lindsey Graham supported the latter, and it simply isn't true based on the interview I included above. Graham denounces the claims of racism, and actually supports what you said JFG - he's that way with everybody. Atsme📞📧 22:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- For an example of Republican criticism, it's not appropriate to use the self-serving comments of an active politician who may support or oppose Trump on a per-day and per-issue basis. So forget Graham. But because so many Republicans and Conservatives do consistently condemn Trump, I suggest using one who's not in office -- e.g. David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, John Podhoretz, Steve Schmidt... SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- So many "Republicans and Conservatives do consistently condemn Trump"? [clarification needed] We need specifics please SPECIFICO. As for adding more pundits and bloggers like David Frum, Jennifer Rubin...uh, nope. If we're going to start identifying Republican House members in investigative decisions, then we should maintain consistency across the board - we either do or we don't include identity politics. Cherrypicking those we like in Congress is not NPOV, so I think we need to follow your original suggestion across the board regarding identity politics and say if it was a Republican or Democratic majority. The few stragglers in each party are not really notable. Atsme📞📧 23:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I just gave you 4 prominent Republicans. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- It was an allegation that was denied. What difference does it make what people say about an allegation? It's great click-bait fodder but it is not encyclopedic. When there are conflicting views, we use intext attribution - why is that a problem? Liken it to the allegation that the whole birther thing was started by HRC when we know full well it was started by her campaign, not her - she continuously denied it - yet WP gives the former DUE in the lead in WikiVoice; i.e., that it was Hillary who started it. The argument used to eliminate that misinformation applies here as well. And yes, the analogy is a useful comparison. Atsme📞📧 14:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I just gave you 4 prominent Republicans. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- So many "Republicans and Conservatives do consistently condemn Trump"? [clarification needed] We need specifics please SPECIFICO. As for adding more pundits and bloggers like David Frum, Jennifer Rubin...uh, nope. If we're going to start identifying Republican House members in investigative decisions, then we should maintain consistency across the board - we either do or we don't include identity politics. Cherrypicking those we like in Congress is not NPOV, so I think we need to follow your original suggestion across the board regarding identity politics and say if it was a Republican or Democratic majority. The few stragglers in each party are not really notable. Atsme📞📧 23:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, some editors mentioned Graham as an example of a Republican criticizing Trump; I don't think it's necessary to name names. — JFG talk 22:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Listen to Graham's own words - CNN interview summarizes it. This section is about racism, not the opinion of his detractors, although we do include them with intext attribution. Include what Graham says but make sure it is a factual quotation of his statement as relevant to this section regarding racism. Atsme📞📧 21:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: Your suggestion waters down the reactions; "condemned" is imho the adequate word reflecting most sources about this affair. And even if we adopted your change, there would still be a lot of redundancy between the two sentences. I would keep "condemned" after the "shitholes" incident, and briefly mention in the same breath that it was not the only time Trump's "racially-insensitive remarks" had met with widespread pushback, so that we don't have to keep two sentences that look very similar with only a denial and a paragraph break between them. We could then move Trump's denial near the "why his supporters accepted that" bit, as suggested in another edit by Space4Time3Continuum2x[86] that was self-reverted due to your challenge of my prior edit. Putting it all together in Draft A below for comments. — JFG talk 22:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- OK. If I can come up with alternative wording, I'll propose it. At the moment, I'm not seeing a case for combining the specific with the general. Remember, there is a 45 year history of racially charged remarks and racially motivated actions to consider.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a 45-year history.... I'm seeing mostly recent partisan spins, basically starts at nomination. Seriously, if all that could be turned up before that was a 1973 allegation, a 1989 opinion, and a 2008 politics bit -- that's basically 45 years of not much, more inclined to say that is proving him as not racist. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are not familiar with Trump's history or the RS accounts of it. Don't forget Archie Bunker was from 1970's Queens, NY. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a 45-year history.... I'm seeing mostly recent partisan spins, basically starts at nomination. Seriously, if all that could be turned up before that was a 1973 allegation, a 1989 opinion, and a 2008 politics bit -- that's basically 45 years of not much, more inclined to say that is proving him as not racist. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Draft A
As happened with several other incidents, his racially insensitive remarks attracted widespread condemnation domestically and worldwide, including by several members of Congress. Trump has denied accusations of racism multiple times, saying he is the "least racist person". His supporters have embraced his controversial statements either as a rejection of political correctness or because of their own racial views.
Thoughts? — JFG talk 22:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
OpposeSupport After sleeping on it, this approach more closely follows what Senator Tim Scott said, "racially insensitive" - that term is compliant, and far less contentious. 13:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC) -with all due respect, that's lazy writing. There is no way to determine "widespread" either domestically or worldwide, and it certainly should not be stated in WikiVoice. None of us can say that for certain, not even media.Atsme📞📧 23:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)- NYTimes, Politico, 5:38, NYMag, Vox, The Guardian...just some food for thought considering we have a mixed audience, and why I prefer to more closely adhere to policy when it comes to intext attribution and generalizing in WikiVoice. I'd rather err on the side of caution when all we have to cite are news sources rather than well researched, unbiased academic/scientific studies. Atsme📞📧 00:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- This kind of linking -- to sources questioning the media and talking about liberal bias -- is not productive here. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations Andrevan@ 02:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know why not. There's nothing wrong with questioning sources/media. It's not as if we have taken an oath to be true to the sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia when we created our accounts. There is liberal bias, just as there is conservative bias. I see discussions on talk pages at every politically charged article that talks about conservative bias and questions sources. What's good for the elephant is good for the donkey. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have a source used in the article that you feel is not reliable because of liberal bias? Andrevan@ 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- We are talking about calling a US President a racist in WikiVoice, so I thought that since we're using some biased news sources and journalist opinion to do that, it would prove helpful for editors to be reminded of what media thinks of themselves, and maybe encourage the use of more academic sources. If we constantly cite news sources and say what they say, then what will distinguish WP from all the other news sources? It certainly doesn't hurt to provide a list of RS under such circumstances, especially where sound editorial judgment is needed. Atsme📞📧 03:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question. Basically every domestic and international news outlet covered Trump's racism on several occasions, not to mention academic sources. Is there a specific source or situation where you feel a source was not reliable that we can discuss? Andrevan@ 03:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they aren't RS - they can be biased and still be RS. What we're dealing with is stating an opinion in WikiVoice, and that is noncompliant with NPOV policy - and it is something that consensus cannot change. We state opinions as opinions per REDFLAG, NEWSORG, CONTENTIOUS LABELS and NPOV. I have already stated that it requires intext attribution. Atsme📞📧 03:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
"Basically every domestic and international news outlet covered Trump's racism"
You have your terminology mixed up. News sources didn't "cover" Trump being a racist, individuals referred to Trump as a racist and news sources covered that. News sources published opinion pieces that referred to Trump as a racist. If you think I'm wrong about this, then please, Andrevan, post links to news sources that covered Trump being racist. And when you do that, make sure it's the kind of coverage that David Duke received over him being racist (that's coverage of racism) or that Richard guy the White Supremacist (can't remember his last name right now). That's covering an individual's blatant racism where they make undeniably racist statements and perform undeniably racist acts. Calling Trump a racist in an opinion piece is not covering "Trump's racism". Individuals calling Trump a racist is not covering "Trump's racism". You believing news sources have "covered Trump's racism", when they didn't is not proof of such coverage. It needs to be on par with news coverage of actual racism - then we can say they have "covered Trump's racism". I will look forward to seeing what you are able to come up with. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)- This was resolved long ago. We should not be WP:REHASHING arguments that were settled and are now in the archives. No editor has a burden of proof and the article does not call Trump racist in Wikipedia's voice. We can certainly discuss whether the article's content is verifiable, or whether rewording material would benefit our readers, but the rest of this is but a distraction.- MrX 🖋 12:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they aren't RS - they can be biased and still be RS. What we're dealing with is stating an opinion in WikiVoice, and that is noncompliant with NPOV policy - and it is something that consensus cannot change. We state opinions as opinions per REDFLAG, NEWSORG, CONTENTIOUS LABELS and NPOV. I have already stated that it requires intext attribution. Atsme📞📧 03:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question. Basically every domestic and international news outlet covered Trump's racism on several occasions, not to mention academic sources. Is there a specific source or situation where you feel a source was not reliable that we can discuss? Andrevan@ 03:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- We are talking about calling a US President a racist in WikiVoice, so I thought that since we're using some biased news sources and journalist opinion to do that, it would prove helpful for editors to be reminded of what media thinks of themselves, and maybe encourage the use of more academic sources. If we constantly cite news sources and say what they say, then what will distinguish WP from all the other news sources? It certainly doesn't hurt to provide a list of RS under such circumstances, especially where sound editorial judgment is needed. Atsme📞📧 03:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have a source used in the article that you feel is not reliable because of liberal bias? Andrevan@ 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know why not. There's nothing wrong with questioning sources/media. It's not as if we have taken an oath to be true to the sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia when we created our accounts. There is liberal bias, just as there is conservative bias. I see discussions on talk pages at every politically charged article that talks about conservative bias and questions sources. What's good for the elephant is good for the donkey. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- This kind of linking -- to sources questioning the media and talking about liberal bias -- is not productive here. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations Andrevan@ 02:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- NYTimes, Politico, 5:38, NYMag, Vox, The Guardian...just some food for thought considering we have a mixed audience, and why I prefer to more closely adhere to policy when it comes to intext attribution and generalizing in WikiVoice. I'd rather err on the side of caution when all we have to cite are news sources rather than well researched, unbiased academic/scientific studies. Atsme📞📧 00:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's a thought - When Senator Tim Scott was asked by Politico's Tim Alberta if he thought Trump was a racist, he shook his head and said “I don’t. I don’t,” he replies. “Is he racially insensitive? Yes. But is he a racist? No.”
There are many other sources that say similar things so when you ask me if we should state in WikiVoice that he's racist, I say no - we use intext attribution, and we provide all views in the same manner. That is how it is supposed to be done with contentious labels and derogatory comments based on opinions. Atsme📞📧 03:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- (Responding to above thread) It's not a question of bias whether Trump has met with "widespread condemnation" on many occasions. He's scarcely cracked 40% approval rating in the US alone, and he's deeply unpopular abroad. His individual statements have also met with widespread condemnation. There's no OR in observing the basic facts of the descriptions of Trump and his actions and activities in everything from WSJ, Fox News, NYT, WaPo, BBC, Guardian, BuzzFeed, Trump is condemned by tons of people for almost everything he does or says. There are also plenty of scientific and scholarly treatments of Trumpism already. That's me talking, not the article. "We are talking about calling a US President a racist in WikiVoice, so I thought that since we're using some biased news sources and journalist opinion to do that, it would prove helpful for editors to be reminded of what media thinks of themselves," sorry, lost you there. In what way does Wikipedia policy say that US presidents get special treatment? "and maybe encourage the use of more academic sources" You mean like this one? Trust me, the academy is not going to help salvage Trump as a reasonably not racist person. At least in newsland there is the soft centrism that is actually right wing bias. The academy is where the socialist ivory tower academic intellectuals live, according to you guys, remember? Andrevan@ 03:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The link you provided is another opinion piece. Where is the coverage of Trump being a David Duke? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's actually not an opinion piece. It is a work of academic political science written by a professor whose job it is to write backward looking scholarly treatments, which is why he didn't publish until March 2018 and it's about the events of 2016. I only brought it up because Atsme referred to wanting more academic sources versus the bread and butter news org sources we generally use for current events stuff. There's plenty of all kinds of sources describing the widespread condemnation of Trump racism. But if you want the David Duke ones specifically here[87] it's in a journal called "Terrorism and POlitical Violence." Did you know Trump has his own journal symposium now? Andrevan@ 04:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC) (P.S. the author is quite accomplished Michael Barkun so we could even call him out by name and give him a few sentences about his interpretation of Trump)
- The link you provided is another opinion piece. Where is the coverage of Trump being a David Duke? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's an opinion piece by three authors with academic credentials telling us why the election went the way it did. Just because they have advanced college degrees, that doesn't make them right or the paper anything more than an opinion piece.
"his interpretation of Trump"
Interesting how you now admit it's his "interpretation of Trump". Which confirms it's an opinion piece (precisely what "interpretation" is). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)- An academic interpretation is not the same as an opinion. Just like a Supreme Court opinion or an ArbCom decision is different from an op-ed. Andrevan@ 04:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, this interpretation actually is an opinion. And, you really didn't just compare the SCOTUS to ArbCom, did you? Yikes. Have you been able to come up with a news source that have covered Trump as they did/would David Duke with quotes and actions that scream racism? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Here, let me help you with that. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: I'm confused. You said you prefer scholarly sources over reliable mainstream media coverage, and then when a scholarly source is offered you reject it as an opinion piece? Is it possible your problem is with what the sources are saying, rather than the sources themselves? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't remember saying that, but I'll take your word for it. In this case, the paper is an opinion piece. Unless you have evidence of Donald Trump being a David Duke or Richard Spencer or even a George Lincoln Rockwell (I know most here will have to look him up), it's all speculation. You can't quantify racism with data or statistics (no serious person thinks you can), it's not measurable. That's why the paper is nothing more than an opinion piece - doesn't matter how many scholars/academics are attributed to it. Bottom line: without real evidence - and the same kind that comes from actual racists - the label in relation to Trump should be dropped. But I'm not foolish or naive enough to believe that will ever happen. Too many agenda-driven hyperbolic-rhetoric obsessed racism-hoopla-ists in this country today. It's like an epidemic. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, this interpretation actually is an opinion. And, you really didn't just compare the SCOTUS to ArbCom, did you? Yikes. Have you been able to come up with a news source that have covered Trump as they did/would David Duke with quotes and actions that scream racism? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- An academic interpretation is not the same as an opinion. Just like a Supreme Court opinion or an ArbCom decision is different from an op-ed. Andrevan@ 04:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have no intention of debating whether or not Trump is or isn't a racist. Some sources allege racism, and others deny it which makes it a challenged claim. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution.
. That is what policy states. Atsme📞📧 04:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)- No, there's a consensus that the article as-is is fine. @Winkelvi, [88] Andrevan@ 04:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan, there is far too much weight given to an alleged comment that was repeatedly denied in the same sources being cited for its inclusion. The source responsible for the allegation was a misrepresentation by Trump's biggest detractor, Dick Durbin, which makes it a partisan allegation. Fact: Durbin was the only Democrat at the meeting; Fact: his allegation went viral; it was great clickbait for news sources, and that is one reason sound editorial judgment by WP editors is crucial. Our PAGs caution about NOTNEWS, and I'm still of the mind that just because it was widely covered in news sources, it is not a valid reason for DUE; policy supports the latter. Fact Check presented a timeline, beginning with the origin of the allegation. The latter is closer to how we should be presenting the material; i.e., succinct, fact-based and brief. It's longevity has already been reached - flash in the pan, unencyclopedic, NOTNEWS. Atsme📞📧 15:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- "repeatedly denied"?? not really. Succint, fact-based and brief would be like, "$**hole". No spin zone version. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Quality encyclopedic material that has lasting value is what withstands the test of time, and is far more important than wasting time debating these flash-in-the-pan partisan allegations that are being utilized by news media. I'm not seeing any lasting importance or resulting impacts as a result of any of the published allegations, and certainly nothing at this point in time that would change my mind in judging their encyclopedic value. WP has no deadline - articles are consistently updated. I hesitate to use the term "it will pass" because it sounds too purgative-ish...but there it is. 😊 Atsme📞📧 16:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- ^^^This.^^^ -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- So, Nijinska, now you're pivoting from "it's not verified, he never said it" to "it doesn't matter"? But this whole thread is about something that we agree does matter, and we were trying to word an appropriate narrative. Or did I read you wrong? SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC
- Quality encyclopedic material that has lasting value is what withstands the test of time, and is far more important than wasting time debating these flash-in-the-pan partisan allegations that are being utilized by news media. I'm not seeing any lasting importance or resulting impacts as a result of any of the published allegations, and certainly nothing at this point in time that would change my mind in judging their encyclopedic value. WP has no deadline - articles are consistently updated. I hesitate to use the term "it will pass" because it sounds too purgative-ish...but there it is. 😊 Atsme📞📧 16:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- "repeatedly denied"?? not really. Succint, fact-based and brief would be like, "$**hole". No spin zone version. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan, there is far too much weight given to an alleged comment that was repeatedly denied in the same sources being cited for its inclusion. The source responsible for the allegation was a misrepresentation by Trump's biggest detractor, Dick Durbin, which makes it a partisan allegation. Fact: Durbin was the only Democrat at the meeting; Fact: his allegation went viral; it was great clickbait for news sources, and that is one reason sound editorial judgment by WP editors is crucial. Our PAGs caution about NOTNEWS, and I'm still of the mind that just because it was widely covered in news sources, it is not a valid reason for DUE; policy supports the latter. Fact Check presented a timeline, beginning with the origin of the allegation. The latter is closer to how we should be presenting the material; i.e., succinct, fact-based and brief. It's longevity has already been reached - flash in the pan, unencyclopedic, NOTNEWS. Atsme📞📧 15:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, there's a consensus that the article as-is is fine. @Winkelvi, [88] Andrevan@ 04:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - If there is a case for combining these two sentences, then it's not clear how they would flow with the last two paragraphs of the section. The passive wording is not good, and I have problems with the word "incidents". That said, we do repeat the word "racist" five times in the section, and a form of the word "condemned" three times. I think that's a problem that should be addressed. Anyone have a thesaurus?- MrX 🖋 12:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Current wording isn't perfect, but it is better than this suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
White supremacist support
In August 2016, he appointed Steve Bannon—the executive chairman of Breitbart News—as his campaign CEO; the website was described by Bannon as "the platform for the alt-right."[424]
This seems like WP:OR. The citation makes no mention of white supremacy. Those words don't even appear in the linked article. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, not OR.[89] Andrevan@ 03:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Then the Bannon quote should be moved elsewhere or the citation changed. The citation as it stands doesn't support the claim in the heading. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nope - it's already in Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 which is actually where it belongs. Atsme📞📧 03:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Then the Bannon quote should be moved elsewhere or the citation changed. The citation as it stands doesn't support the claim in the heading. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Trump's claims about Wharton
We’ve recently had several edits and changes about his claim to have excelled at Wharton. The article used to say he "boasted" about this; editors changed it to "claimed", later "said", for NPOV reasons; the latest edit changed it to the POV word "bragged". The article currently says
He later bragged he had excelled at Wharton and had been ranked number one in his class of 333 students.[1] Classmates of Trump when asked to verify his claim have stated they do not recall him as having been an exceptional student. He was not named in the student newspaper for the honor roll list.[2]
Sources
- ^ Klemesrud, Judy (November 1, 1976). "Donald Trump, Real Estate Promoter, Builds Image as He Buys Buildings". New York Times. Retrieved May 24, 2018.
- ^ Kranish & Fisher 2017, p. 47.
The cited NYT article stated as fact (obviously getting it from Trump but not citing it to him) that he graduated first in his class; it does not say "number one in his class of 333 students" and there’s no telling where that came from. That NYT article is very laudatory; it is anything but objective reporting. The other, debunking source is not viewable online so we don’t know what claim it is responding to. There are much better sources out there. I’m proposing a rewrite with better sources, as follows:
He later claimed to have been first in his class at Wharton,[1] but records show that he was not on the Dean's List,[2] and the 1968 commencement program does not list him as graduating with any sort of honors.[3] His classmates do not recall him as exceptional.[4][5]
Sources
- ^ Babay, Emily (February 18, 2017). "Questions linger about Trump's academic record at Wharton - Philly". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
- ^ Spinelli, Dan (November 6, 2016). "Why Penn Won't Talk About Donald Trump". Politico. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
- ^ Kessler, Glenn (February 1, 2016). "Donald Trump's myths about himself". The Washington Post. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
- ^ Zarya, Valentina (August 14, 2015). "No one knows what Donald Trump did at Wharto". Fortune. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
- ^ Kranish & Fisher 2017, p. 47.
Comments? Pinging User:SPECIFICO and User:Winkelvi. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The book cited a sentence or two later has the text "bragged" and the factual statement that he was not on the published honor roll. You can see the cited pages on google books searching for the associated words. See what you think. The Times story doesn't appear to be useful for this content, since the reporter must have taken Trump's/Howard Rubinstein's words at face value. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that it does. [90] That's a better source than the Philadelphia Inquirer article I used, if people could easily see what it says. (I am no fan of this type of reference listing, that just gives the name of the book and a page.) Up to discussants here whether to say "bragged" in the article. Personally I would choose a more neutral word. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I had no problem with the original article text "boasted". I only changed to bragged after reading the source. But there's nothing neutral about changing the sense of the source when the authors, who spoke to many sources including many classmates and others to whom Trump made the remarks, chose "bragged" to capture the tone of his remarks. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter if the text in the book said "bragged", it's POV and was in Wiki-voice. Can't do that. "Boasted" is also POV, and when I changed it, it was in Wiki-voice. Still can't do that. Unless the sources have a named individual or individuals who have been quoted as saying, "he bragged about it at this date/place/on this occasion, it's just not encyclopedic and certainly not neutral language to use either bragged or boasted in wiki-voice. We need a neutral word. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The book's text does matter. It's an NPOV violation to neutralize or censor sourced content. Neither sources nor content must be neutral, just editors, who must remain neutral in how they present biased content. Reality is not neutral, and that's what we document, warts and all. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The way to do this, as always, is with attribution:
According to Trump Revealed, he "bragged about being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, even claiming to be first in his class." When asked to verify his claim, classmates of Trump stated they did not recall him as having been an exceptional student. He was not named in the student newspaper for the honor roll list.
- Something like that, anyway. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Andrevan@ 21:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly how it's done. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- More crap un encyclopedic writing that doesn't belong here. Talk about getting into the weeds. Maybe put this "material" into one of his sub articles or the Trump Revealed article since those are even shitty than this one. --Malerooster (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Malerooster: Given that we are currently discussing the material and your opinion appears to differ considerably from others here, this edit would seem to be highly inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Scjessey, wrong, it is highly appropriate. This crap was added days ago. If there is consensus for including this garbage, fine, add it back, but it should not be in until then, and you know this. --Malerooster (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Malerooster: Given that we are currently discussing the material and your opinion appears to differ considerably from others here, this edit would seem to be highly inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- More crap un encyclopedic writing that doesn't belong here. Talk about getting into the weeds. Maybe put this "material" into one of his sub articles or the Trump Revealed article since those are even shitty than this one. --Malerooster (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly how it's done. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Andrevan@ 21:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The way to do this, as always, is with attribution:
- Wink, If the source says "bragged" then "bragged" is not POV. If the source said "Jack jumped over the moon" would you change it to "jack walked over the moon: to make it "NPOV"? SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: While that would seem logical, I do think attribution for such a loaded word is the way to go, rather than in Wikipedia's voice. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's rather matter-of-fact to say that he boasted or bragged. And this stood up for a long time in the article before a few minor edits prompted this discussion. What to do? We could try to find a second RS to confirm bragged before stating it in WP's voice. In this case, because the book itself is notable, it is not UNDUE to attribute it, but I do think the attribution appears out of place in the narrative and considerably weakens or casts doubt on what appears to be a thoroughly-researched bit of information. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO,this stood up for a long time in the article, this was introduced days ago. --Malerooster (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's rather matter-of-fact to say that he boasted or bragged. And this stood up for a long time in the article before a few minor edits prompted this discussion. What to do? We could try to find a second RS to confirm bragged before stating it in WP's voice. In this case, because the book itself is notable, it is not UNDUE to attribute it, but I do think the attribution appears out of place in the narrative and considerably weakens or casts doubt on what appears to be a thoroughly-researched bit of information. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: While that would seem logical, I do think attribution for such a loaded word is the way to go, rather than in Wikipedia's voice. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The book's text does matter. It's an NPOV violation to neutralize or censor sourced content. Neither sources nor content must be neutral, just editors, who must remain neutral in how they present biased content. Reality is not neutral, and that's what we document, warts and all. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
OK folks, read the articles and books at this search result. It is so widely and reliably reported that there's no need to attribute this and boast/brag is clearly a central theme in Trump's life story so it is very much an important detail and an interesting peek-a-boo into his early days of bragging. Search[91] SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's clear there are plenty of reliable sources to support using a variation of "brag" in this context, but I'm still not sure we need to. At least you are willing to have a meaningful discussion about it, rather than choosing a more hostile path. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- What you call hostile, I call removing crap added a few days ago that is now being discussed. --Malerooster (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fine, then add this garbage under the section about him bragging and boasting or making false comments ect, that works for everybody, me included. --Malerooster (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of this material by Malerooster; not appropriate when the topic is under discussion here. I like the suggestion of using a direct quote from the book, and I will adapt it into my proposed rewrite (not because of OWNERSHIP, just because we need good sources). --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support MelanieN. Can I also add that trying to protect Trump's biography from discussion of his braggadocio is a fool's errand. The man once said of himself, "Napoleon. Alexander the Great. Donald Trump. We're cut from the same cloth."[92] He's a "stable genius" who primarily consults himself for foreign policy advice because he has the best, biggest brain. He pretended to be his own spokesman on multiple occasions to call magazines and inflate his own net worth, not to mention his career as the subject of tabloid accounts of his amazing sexual prowess. Boastfulness is his modus operandi. Andrevan@ 22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan, could we stick to discussing the content of the article and not get off into FORUM territory? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Then add that garbage under the appropriate section about his bragging or what not. Every fact in his bio could be followed by his denial or brag or whatever followed by facts disproving his brag ect. --Malerooster (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
"trying to protect Trump's biography from discussion of his braggadocio is a fool's errand."
No one is doing that. I see at least two of us in this discussion wanting only to rid any hint of POV in the wording. Andrevan, please stop with these accusations that you've been throwing around for days and remember to WP:AGF. As well, please read WP:FOC. Honestly, if all of this coming from you doesn't stop soon, you can probably expect to see an AN or AN/I that is about your behavior. Behavior, I might add, that is simply unacceptable coming from an administrator. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh course it was appropriate, I would direct you to BRD. This garbage was just added to the article. If consensus is to keep it, fine, but until then, it shouldn't be included. Which part of BRD are we struggling with?--Malerooster (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
(EC x2) OK, how about this?
According to Trump Revealed, he later "bragged about being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, even claiming to be first in his class."[1][2][3] However, records show that he was never on the Dean's List,[4] and the 1968 commencement program does not list him as graduating with any sort of honors.[5] His classmates do not recall him as exceptional.[6]
- ^ Kranish, Michael; Fisher, Marc (2016). Trump Revealed. Scribner. pp. 47–48. ISBN 978-1-5011-5577-2.
- ^ Klemesrud, Judy (November 1, 1976). "Donald Trump, Real Estate Promoter, Builds Image as He Buys Buildings". New York Times. Retrieved May 24, 2018.
- ^ Babay, Emily (February 18, 2017). "Questions linger about Trump's academic record at Wharton - Philly". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
- ^ Spinelli, Dan (November 6, 2016). "Why Penn Won't Talk About Donald Trump". Politico. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
- ^ Kessler, Glenn (February 1, 2016). "Donald Trump's myths about himself". The Washington Post. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
- ^ Zarya, Valentina (August 14, 2015). "No one knows what Donald Trump did at Wharton". Fortune. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why is this garbage that was added 5 days ago per BRD not reverted and discussed first before re adding it?--Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I like what you've written, but suggest the following slight changes:
According to Trump Revealed, he later "bragged about being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, as well as claiming to be first in his class. Wharton records, however, do not show he was on the Dean's List, and the 1968 commencement program does not list him as graduating with honors."
- "...even claiming..." sounds like immature language use rather than encyclopedic; "however" was improperly placed/used per rules of grammar; "never on the Dean's list" is awkward, bordering on immature language; "...any sort of..." is extraneous and unnecessary. Good job - please don't take my changes personally. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Also, non of the sources say that he later "bragged about being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, even claiming to be first in his class", is that what the Kranish Fisher source claims? --Malerooster (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)ps, it is certainly not in the Times citation. --Malerooster (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- My dear Malerooster, in the past hour or so, you've made a number of comments here that primarily consist of "garbage" and "crap." I recommend you switch to a policy-based argument other than BRD because as you may or may not know, the WP:DS regime includes special reversion and consensus checks which stabilize stable versions against bold edits, gamesmanship, and so on. If you have a policy-based opinion on how to include this content, I suggest you comment on MelanieN's text and not simply argue in a disparaging way about this "garbagio," capisce? Personally, I like MelanieN's text quite a bit! Anyone else? Andrevan@ 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan, which part of BRD don't you get? This "material" was just added. The NYT article does not support it. Period. --Malerooster (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The book source is here and like I said, part of the arb enforcement suspended normal BRD. Andrevan@ 22:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan, can you link to where BRD is "suspended"? DS above looks like it covers article deletion sorting? but I am no lawyer. --Malerooster (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I actually agree about the citation to the book; as a reader I want to see the actual quote, and in my proposed version above I have now cited it to the appropriate page in the book. Maybe that's a case of IAR since the book has already been cited in a different format, but I think it's important here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC) NOTE: In order to see the link, you have to "show" the references. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Malerooster, about BRD: The idea of BRD is supposed to be: Person A adds something to the article; Person B objects to it; so Person B reverts it and starts a talk page discussion about whether it should be in the article or not. BRD does not really address this situation where: Person A adds something to the article; Persons B and C modify it; person C starts a talk page discussion to decide on the exact wording; after a fair amount of discussion (six participants) has already occurred, Person H comes along, removes the material, and tries to claim BRD for why it shouldn’t be in the article. Bottom line, the discussion here has been about the wording; no one but you has said the material should be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Melanie, the discussion started today. The section/material in question has been stable for a year, two, more? An editor boldly adds material, sorry I missed it, Wikipedia is not my full time job. If I had seen it, I would have removed it and started the discussion (the only reason I saw that it was added recently was todays discussion) myself. This material is fine under false statements, or bragging or what have you. I don't think its appropriate here since the actions or whatever you want to call it have happened long after the early life education section, that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan, can you link to where BRD is "suspended"? DS above looks like it covers article deletion sorting? but I am no lawyer. --Malerooster (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The book source is here and like I said, part of the arb enforcement suspended normal BRD. Andrevan@ 22:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan, which part of BRD don't you get? This "material" was just added. The NYT article does not support it. Period. --Malerooster (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- My dear Malerooster, in the past hour or so, you've made a number of comments here that primarily consist of "garbage" and "crap." I recommend you switch to a policy-based argument other than BRD because as you may or may not know, the WP:DS regime includes special reversion and consensus checks which stabilize stable versions against bold edits, gamesmanship, and so on. If you have a policy-based opinion on how to include this content, I suggest you comment on MelanieN's text and not simply argue in a disparaging way about this "garbagio," capisce? Personally, I like MelanieN's text quite a bit! Anyone else? Andrevan@ 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Also, non of the sources say that he later "bragged about being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, even claiming to be first in his class", is that what the Kranish Fisher source claims? --Malerooster (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)ps, it is certainly not in the Times citation. --Malerooster (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have to ask, why does this need to be in the article? Does not seem like something that matters. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng, it might, big might, be ok in a section about Trump's bragging or false facts (section already exists, put it there), but I would not have it where an editor boldly added it to a few days ago. --Malerooster (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think MelanieN has done a fine job of writing clear and encyclopedic text for this information. I also like that version because the links to the book and to Dean's List allow this article text to be direct without belaboring the point. The only question one might have is that, since there appear to be so very many sources for this information, do we want to indicate in a few additional words that it's not just presented by a single notable book. ? Well done, MelanieN, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- What are the other sources? --Malerooster (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm removing the hat from the sources; that seems to be causing confusion. You should now see
foursix sources listed under my proposed text. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)- And only one claims that he bragged about being #1 in his class. --Malerooster (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I have re-added the NYT article (I had regarded it as unreliable as I discussed above) along with the Philly article that directly refers to the NYT article as the first place this claim was made. To be clear, I am talking about my latest proposal, the one under the heading "OK, how about this?" --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- And only one claims that he bragged about being #1 in his class. --Malerooster (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm removing the hat from the sources; that seems to be causing confusion. You should now see
- The NYT article says Trump graduated first in his class, it does not attribute that statement to Trump himself, or did I miss something? TFD (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Support MelanieN's version. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Leave it all out - Just cut this out as all much ado about nothing trivia. There is a 1973 article saying he was first in his class; there is data that he was not on the Deans list; there is a 2016 book saying he 'bragged' -- none of these logically exclude the others, none of them seem seriously researched, and none of them are biographically important. For a prominent WP:PUBLICFIGURE which he was even before the presidency, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The lack of much mention simply demonstrates that it was not "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented". I see the Phillyvoice article cite to 1984 NYTimes "He says he never told them that either.", and the link to AP news saying only that the 1973 story is disputed and the school has no comment. No where is Trump saying this. No where does it matter to anything. All we have is an ancient rumor and a fresher rumor and no reason for it to be in his BLP as if it were a major life event. Leave it out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Omit - I pretty much agree with Markbassett. As much as I would like to see the article more accurately reflect the extensive coverage of Trump's character "issues", we don't have enough—or solid enough—RS to pass WEIGHT for this particular content. With a handful of exceptions, RS has apparently taken a pass on this, and that makes it a wikinothingburger.
Meta: We simply can't cherry-pick a few sources and decide, using nothing but "editorial judgment" as our guide, that what they say is article-worthy. Editorial judgment is too biased for that to work. I could be wrong, and I would read with interest the Wikipedia policy that grants that much power to editorial judgment. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are plenty of RS, they have not taken a pass on this. There are many more on top of the ones Melanie included. [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] His education and his misleading statements about it are extremely relevant to a biography, and are in no way "rumor." Above comments by Mandruss and Markbassett are not policy-based. Andrevan@ 05:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I decline to spend two hours of my life tediously producing a thorough analysis of the cited sources, showing which are opinion pieces and which do not specifically support the specific content. A cursory look at a few of them makes it clear that you have not been that rigorous yourself, so the specific non-opinion support for the specific content is sure to be far less than you make it seem with a bunch of external links.
I'll also note FYI that interpreting the vague and self-contradictory morass of policy differently than you do is not "not policy-based". WP:WEIGHT is policy, and editorial judgment is not policy. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from such spurious claims. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I decline to spend two hours of my life tediously producing a thorough analysis of the cited sources, showing which are opinion pieces and which do not specifically support the specific content. A cursory look at a few of them makes it clear that you have not been that rigorous yourself, so the specific non-opinion support for the specific content is sure to be far less than you make it seem with a bunch of external links.
- Omit – This is a hurricane in a coffee cup. Did Trump attend Wharton? Yes. Did he graduate? Yes. Did he talk shit about his top-levelness? Yes. As he talks shit about everything. Let's stick to facts, lest we want to triple the article size by adding every claim and counter-claim peddled in every pro-Trump and anti-Trump book. — JFG talk 06:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that he constantly brags and exaggerates about everything is a fact though, that should be covered as that is a major part of his character. Per Mandruss, I don't know if this has WEIGHT for inclusion, but the overall braggardness, and the most prominent examples, should be included. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. The more specific the content, the less RS support there is for it. Lesson: Avoid specific wikivoice content in controversial areas. Make general, carefully-worded wikivoice statements for which there are literally hundreds of reliable sources. Then supplement with some attributed opinion, from both sides but proportional to the overall coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Leave out all the "deans list" and anything "bragged" about. It can't/hasn't been verified and is SYNTH to try and correlate deans list/honor roll and class rank. He certainly could have been #11 and not on an honors list or vice versa since we don't have any sources connecting them. He has a Wharton Economics degree and he transferred from Fordham. We don't need to characterize/verify/debunk these anecdotal bits and claims that have no bearing on the absolute factual statements of BS Economics @ Wharton, University of Penn and require a level of synthesis to make them relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:192C:D49F:EAB:7AEC (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Omit per every omit argument above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I suppose we don't need it. I can sort of get behind the UNDUE position. Trump's extraordinary mendacity is a defining characteristic of the man, but the lies he told about his time at Wharton are insignificant compared to the whoppers in the last few years, or even in the tweets he's sent out just today. Nobody really cares about these small potatoes lies, even though they'd be front page news for any other politician. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- What a load of horse crap, front page my azz. --Malerooster (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- But one's education and implied skills and intellect are key points, especially early in one's career in NY where the competition -- even in the real estate and government circles -- is full of top-tier ivy league grads. So these lies are foundational and were a foreshadowing of what was to become one of the central themes of his life and character. If it were truly undue, like the breed of his pet cat or the name of his tailor, it would not be mentioned in so very many sources. It sounds like some editors here have not reviewed all the RS reports of this. The notable book is only one among many and there's nothing to suggest that report was based on casual or incomplete research. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, I still support the inclusion of MelanieN's version (as I state above); however, I'm not going to make a fuss if there's a consensus to omit because I think it's a borderline case. I totally agree with you that it's a foreshadowing of what's to come, but I'm not sure the sources are strongly making that point. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion of MelanieN's version. In a biography, we should strive to include relevant material that helps readers understand the character of the subject.- MrX 🖋 14:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Attempt at a close, reversion, and continued discussion
Summary of opinion so far (and remember, we are talking about the version immediately under (EC x2) OK, how about this?):
- Use it: MelanieN, Andrevan, SPECIFICO, Scjessey, BullRangifer, MrX, Gandydancer, Signedzzz
- Don’t use it: Malerooster, PackMecEng, Markbassett, Mandruss, JFG, IP 2006, Winkelvi, MONGO, L293D, Sir Joseph, power~enwiki, GregL
- Expressed doubts, not sure what they recommend: TFD, Galobtter
It seems clear that there is NOT consensus to include this material in the article, and I will remove it. Thanks for your input, all. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is more of a "no consensus" situation, actually. Which means it should really remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong Scjessey. There needs to be consensus for inclusion of NEW material like this, not the other way around. --Malerooster (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with you. This discussion started as a proposed language change for existing material, even if that material had only been around for a few days. On that basis, "no consensus" would imply the existing language should remain. Then a few editors showed up arguing for a complete omission, which was not originally on the table. Anyway, to preclude more hostile commenting, I suggest we just agree to disagree. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong Scjessey. There needs to be consensus for inclusion of NEW material like this, not the other way around. --Malerooster (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support MelanieN's version. Sorry to be late but this moved so quickly and it's hard to keep up. I strongly support including this material. Gandydancer (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Add me to the Don't use it category. Its not a problem with issues such as him not being forthcoming with his grades (did Obama ever release his transcripts?), etc. but injecting the editorial wording "bragged/brag" etc. is not needed.--MONGO 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Omit per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
(EC x3) OK, I readded Scjessey and added Gandydancer. that makes it more of a split. Where there is not a clear consensus, the default (per DS) is to the longstanding or stable version of the article. Since this material was only added five days ago, the default at this point is to leave it out. People can continue to comment if they want. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Adding MONGO and L293D. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Since opinions are still coming in I will let things lie for the moment. When it appears everyone has had their say I will ask for a neutral third party to come and evaluate. If some new person adds an opinion, please add yourself to the tally above. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever happens, the revert war going on needs to stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, yesterday, you reverted the removal of this material because it was under discussion. The discussion has been continuing. You just now closed the discussion and removed the material. I respect that you will leave the discussion open, however, the material should also be restored. The stable version of the article is the 5-day-old version and not the 10-minute-old version. I reverted you for the same procedural reason you had reverted yesterday. Also, closing a discussion and getting a consensus is more than a majority or plurality vote, it involves evaluating arguments. For example, "Oppose, it's garbage." would be discounted as it is not valid. Andrevan@ 15:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- 5 days doesn't make it the stable version especially as it's been under discussion for the last 2 עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Please discuss content, not editors.- MrX 🖋 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
STOP reverting each other, immediately. It doesn't really matter which version is in the article for the moment. It DOES matter that we respect the DS and each other. I have lost count and am not sure whether it is currently in the article or not, but whichever it is, LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS for another day or two until discussion here winds down. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- You can add me to the don't use it category. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree, Melanie. The correct action is the stable version remains - the dispute/revert clause is not retroactive. Further, you are an involved editor, and I feel your involvement is not specifically neutral and even-handed, but that you have considerable sympathy for the arguments of those trying to trim the article of reliably sourced material. Andrevan@ 15:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- We are both involved editors. When you reverted me at the article I immediately disengaged; I assume you will now do the same. However, your reading of my actions is incorrect; did you not notice that I accepted consensus to remove the material, even though I was personally on the "keep" side - and had expended considerable effort in trying to create an acceptable version? (You, on the other hand, reverted to your preferred version.) You really need to stop assuming that everyone here is pushing an agenda. That's what I was referring to at the ANI discussion, when I said you have a battlefield attitude. It would help a lot if you would just discuss what to put in the article, without always attributing slanted motives to anyone who disagrees with you about anything. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have a preferred version, it's a pretty minor thing in the scheme of things, and I don't particularly care. The thing I feel strongly about is Wikipedia policy. I supported the rewritten version that you improved to address editors' objections. If there was really a consensus to remove it, I would abide by that as well. However, the discussion was more or less split -- consensus is not a simple majority -- and there were several reasons to question and continue discussing. You were involved and you closed the discussion early, even as people were discussing. I reverted your change because you had restored the stable version previously. Your close was improper. You may say you were on the Keep side, but you rushed to close for Remove. I am not saying you are misrepresenting your position, simply that your close was improper. Andrevan@ 17:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Have you noticed that the discussion has been reopened? If so, what are you on about? As to the state of the article, the sole uninvolved admin here has weighed in below. And you are not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia policy, believe it or not. I think "the thing [you] feel strongly about" is arguing with other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have a preferred version, it's a pretty minor thing in the scheme of things, and I don't particularly care. The thing I feel strongly about is Wikipedia policy. I supported the rewritten version that you improved to address editors' objections. If there was really a consensus to remove it, I would abide by that as well. However, the discussion was more or less split -- consensus is not a simple majority -- and there were several reasons to question and continue discussing. You were involved and you closed the discussion early, even as people were discussing. I reverted your change because you had restored the stable version previously. Your close was improper. You may say you were on the Keep side, but you rushed to close for Remove. I am not saying you are misrepresenting your position, simply that your close was improper. Andrevan@ 17:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- We are both involved editors. When you reverted me at the article I immediately disengaged; I assume you will now do the same. However, your reading of my actions is incorrect; did you not notice that I accepted consensus to remove the material, even though I was personally on the "keep" side - and had expended considerable effort in trying to create an acceptable version? (You, on the other hand, reverted to your preferred version.) You really need to stop assuming that everyone here is pushing an agenda. That's what I was referring to at the ANI discussion, when I said you have a battlefield attitude. It would help a lot if you would just discuss what to put in the article, without always attributing slanted motives to anyone who disagrees with you about anything. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Admin note: I've always said material should be in the article for four to six weeks before it can be considered stable. If editors can come to an agreement here to lessen that time period, I will certainly consider it but meanwhile, four to six weeks is the rule of thumb that needs to be used. --NeilN talk to me 15:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN: Are you telling us you consider yourself the sole interpreter of the DS language? There's too much nitpicking and not enough discussion going on here. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, there have been multiple discussions about this, including a couple of discussions at my talk page [107] [108] . Those discussions have subsequently been cited multiple times as expressing admin understanding of the DS guidelines. I myself summarized the guidelines as I understand them here: “The intent of the "consensus" requirement is stability of the article. That means that newly added material can be challenged (by removal) and it cannot then be re-added without consensus. It also means that an edit which removes longstanding material can be challenged (by restoring the material), and the material cannot then be removed without consensus. The default in all cases is the version which has been stable for a period of time.” --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN: In this case, however we had something much less clear due to various copy edits, none of which challenged the content per se, affirming its status as the consensus content aside from these copy-edit tweaks. My understanding is that this is what you explained to Malerooster here: [109]. The subsequent removal appeared to be a good faith misreading of consensus, which you quickly and graciously acknowledged. My general view is that this article is written too much as a series of anecdotes, leaving it to the reader to infer general narratives and conclusions relating to Trump's life. In fact, we have plentiful secondary and tertiary sources that present summary narratives and generalize in a way that gives coherence to similar actions, statements, or public reactions over the course of Trump's life. These are more tractable than RECENTISM and news sources for article content. The Book containing the Wharton "bragging" is such a reference. There are many others as well. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, there have been multiple discussions about this, including a couple of discussions at my talk page [107] [108] . Those discussions have subsequently been cited multiple times as expressing admin understanding of the DS guidelines. I myself summarized the guidelines as I understand them here: “The intent of the "consensus" requirement is stability of the article. That means that newly added material can be challenged (by removal) and it cannot then be re-added without consensus. It also means that an edit which removes longstanding material can be challenged (by restoring the material), and the material cannot then be removed without consensus. The default in all cases is the version which has been stable for a period of time.” --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Don't use it per space concerns and concerns about how it is presented. The part about
He later bragged he had excelled at Wharton and had been ranked number one in his class of 333 students
would fit better under "False statements"; Trump had a long history of using "Truthful Hyperbole" [110] from before becoming President that isn't discussed in the "Public Profile" section at all. The fact that he graduated at the middle of his class isn't terribly interesting here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC) - Support keeping this well-sourced biographical info. It is hard to imagine it being excluded from any other article. zzz (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Omit - Per reasoning of both Markbassett and power~enwiki. Had the verb “claimed” remained as it was, which was more encyclopedic, this probably wouldn’t have come onto the radar screen. Instead, the edit focused editors’ attention on whether that whole bit is NotNews and is worthy of having been added to an already bloated article. Having a claim, boast, or brag refuted with tabloid-quality …they do not recall him as having been an exceptional student isn’t encyclopedic. Greg L (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Greg, have you read the cited sources? The "do not recall" bit is from a notable book and the authors interviewed a large number of Trump's former classmates at Penn. In other words, the authors did exhaustive fact-checking by that and other means to see whether they could verify Trump's claims. It's far from "tabloid-quality" and that is an unfortunate disparagement of the authors and their serious, critically recognized research for the book. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- First off, SPECIFICO, I note and applaud your mastery of debate with your …unfortunate disparagement of the authors and their serious, critically recognized research for the book. Nonetheless, I didn’t say the book was tabloid quality. However, for an encyclopedia to take that particular snippet from the book, which was buttressed not with school transcripts but with “don't recall” by fellow students and use it in the manner we did here is unfortunately not encyclopedic. Greg L (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have no idea what "debate" you think is on tap here. The authors did not rely solely on the recollection of the dozens of classmates they interviewed. They researched school records such as the published honor rolls and Dean's List. It doesn't sound as if you are fully familiar with the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- “Debate”? Why that is what occurs on these pages, SPECIFICO. On talk pages, we don’t “vote!” on questions and formal RfCs but discuss, share ideas, and debate topics in a formal manner as we endeavor to arrive at a consensus. Try looking up the word sometime.
I don’t have any enthusiasm for tendentious, non-productive arguments; it’s clear you feel otherwise so there is little point continuing with you. My reasoning stands and I find your arguments to be unconvincing. Goodbye for now. Greg L (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- “Debate”? Why that is what occurs on these pages, SPECIFICO. On talk pages, we don’t “vote!” on questions and formal RfCs but discuss, share ideas, and debate topics in a formal manner as we endeavor to arrive at a consensus. Try looking up the word sometime.
Praise of Roseanne Barr's Show
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why no mention of all his praise for Roseanne Barr and her show? 24.51.215.40 (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Probably because nobody is surprised by Trump supporting a racist. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hardly a major part of his life. O3000 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Here's your one warning re: BLP TPG, HiLo48. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48 did not call him a racist. He said nobody is surprised by him supporting a racist. You could call this snarky. You could also call it a valid argument for non-inclusion. Up to you if you want to AGF. O3000 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- The article already does anyway.--MONGO 13:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48 did not call him a racist. He said nobody is surprised by him supporting a racist. You could call this snarky. You could also call it a valid argument for non-inclusion. Up to you if you want to AGF. O3000 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Here's your one warning re: BLP TPG, HiLo48. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Here we go:
“ | Bob Iger of ABC called Valerie Jarrett to let her know that “ABC does not tolerate comments like those” made by Roseanne Barr. Gee, he never called President Donald J. Trump to apologize for the HORRIBLE statements made and said about me on ABC. Maybe I just didn’t get the call? | ” |
- MrX 🖋 15:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- So? You can't honestly be saying this latest news should be in the article right? PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Let's see what else he says or does, and proceed accordingly.- MrX 🖋 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, let's just say I wouldn't be super surprised if something like that happened. PackMecEng (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Let's see what else he says or does, and proceed accordingly.- MrX 🖋 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh ffs. I mean, still well away from being notable enough for here; but comparing a racist[1][2][3][4] tweet to news coverage about himself - oooof. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- He's not endorsing her tweet with that tweet. Not even close.--MONGO 16:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Leave it out. This is Trump's biography. His response to a flash-in-the-pan news report about someone else is way, way UNDUE. (P.S. I have no idea what Winklevi's archiving comment means.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I closed the discussion as it was generally generating unhelpful/uncivil discussion not leading to any article content (the subsequent discussion here confirms that was pretty much a good idea; this discussion, and I'll have to admit, my comment above on Trump's tweet, are not really constructive). Winkelvi added a reply after my close and reclosed it with that comment Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop with the revert war. All of you. Hatting or not hatting - who cares, really? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs to be added. But, I also don't think the discussion should be closed by what appears to be vandalism. O3000 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's not vandalism. There is no edit being discussed.
Let's see what else he says or does, and proceed accordingly.
is a crystal ball andcomparing a racist tweet to news coverage about himself - oooof.
is FORUM material. Propose an edit we can discuss or STFU. This isn't the place for that nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:3d30:5e3:ff9d:d55f (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's not vandalism. There is no edit being discussed.
I've warned the user about 3RR. As for whether to hat or not, I prefer to wait until a discussion has had no new entries for at least 24 hours before hatting. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FORUM are policies. I was reverted after being falsely accused of being a banned editor and/or sock puppet. There is no basis for reverting a policy based hat. See WP:TPG for hatting. There is no edit being discussed and the comments are entirely inappropriate. I am not involved in the discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:3d30:5e3:ff9d:d55f (talk • contribs) (UTC)
- You have a knowledge of policies and wiki-talk that the casual IP editor wouldn't have. If you have edited as an IP before and have never had an account here (you claim you aren't a sock), what other articles have you edited as an IP that would geolocate to where you are now (which is Chandler, AZ)? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Don’t believe every site that claims to locate IPs. Not sure where this originates, but I’d guess Georgia – and that’s just a guess. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Winkelvi, that question is out of line. People do not have to account for themselves or identify what other accounts they have used. It's clear this is not a new user, but people are allowed to edit anonymously. The only point here is that it is inappropriate to hat a discussion that is still getting comments and has not yet run its course. Also that since this user has hatted it four different times (already violating 3RR), any further hatting will result in a block. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Don’t believe every site that claims to locate IPs. Not sure where this originates, but I’d guess Georgia – and that’s just a guess. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You have a knowledge of policies and wiki-talk that the casual IP editor wouldn't have. If you have edited as an IP before and have never had an account here (you claim you aren't a sock), what other articles have you edited as an IP that would geolocate to where you are now (which is Chandler, AZ)? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a professional encyclopedia article about the president of the United States. Does anyone really believe that World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica would include stuff like this in their article on Donald Trump? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Trump Going on a Diet
Today trump announced he is going to start eating healthier. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM WP:10YT. O3000 (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I actually agree with Objective here, weird. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to announce that I am going on a diet too, with an intention to eat healthier. I think my announcement is just of worthy of inclusion as Trump's. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Me too! Together we shall diet. — JFG talk 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- And yet we manage to find room in the article for "Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level of 143 do not indicate excellent health"... I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Feel free to remove that. — JFG talk 15:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Given the history of that sentence, I think it's safe to say that removal would be reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly, but it's less recent now. WP:CCC — JFG talk 16:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Let me make that into a confirmation; indeed, I would revert that removal, since if we're including Ronny Jackson's statement of excellent health we should also include other analyses as reported in RS. (overall, though, I think I'd support removing most of the health section, i.e both Jackson's statement and the analyses of other physicians) Also, I think WP:CCC is often overused; it is still going to be the same dozen or so editors arguing over it now than when it was discussed before, and they are unlikely to shift much in opinion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between a statement about an announcement of someone's diet and a well-verified claim by relevant authorities about the health of the president of the US. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Fine. Not important either way. Hey, we just pre-empted some drama by chatting here. Wonderful achievement! — JFG talk 16:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Let's celebrate. Cheeseburgers for everyone. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Premature. Not everybody has seen this. Still plenty of time for drama. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- My head already hurts today, no need to kick start a new month long adventure for something minor. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Let me make that into a confirmation; indeed, I would revert that removal, since if we're including Ronny Jackson's statement of excellent health we should also include other analyses as reported in RS. (overall, though, I think I'd support removing most of the health section, i.e both Jackson's statement and the analyses of other physicians) Also, I think WP:CCC is often overused; it is still going to be the same dozen or so editors arguing over it now than when it was discussed before, and they are unlikely to shift much in opinion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly, but it's less recent now. WP:CCC — JFG talk 16:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Given the history of that sentence, I think it's safe to say that removal would be reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Feel free to remove that. — JFG talk 15:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- And yet we manage to find room in the article for "Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level of 143 do not indicate excellent health"... I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Me too! Together we shall diet. — JFG talk 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"And some, I assume, are good people."
I've reverted this edit because it seems super clunky. Is it really necessary? And if so, can we do a better job of it? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- What part is not necessary?--MONGO 17:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think that was in response to this thread. PackMecEng (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is such a controversial statement and has almost become infamous at this point that I think it would be better for us to just use his direct quote in its entirety rather than trying to paraphrase part of it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I fully agree with that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- How about "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he stated: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people." Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Two thumbs up. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, if the quote, as short as it is anyway, is to be included, include all of it.--MONGO 17:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- agree, better than trying to paraphrase that by basically repeating the quote Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh dear. This edit from Guy Macon (talk · contribs) was not very smart, given that we're in mid discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I was not aware of this discussion. I simply saw a claim in a Wikipedia article that did not match what was in the cited source and tried to correct it. After the correction was reverted, I tried correcting it with different wording. I stand by my conclusion that the claim does not match what was in the cited source. Is someone willing to argue that it does? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh dear. This edit from Guy Macon (talk · contribs) was not very smart, given that we're in mid discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- How about "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he stated: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people." Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I fully agree with that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the edit adding the actual quote. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Rreagan007 (talk · contribs) has changed the quote we all agreed to, without explicitly notifying us, to make it look as if we agreed to something we didn't. I don't think the addition is necessary, but it isn't a deal breaker for me. I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of this unpublicized change. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I apologize. The original quote I found was apparently incomplete. To check the quotation, I actually went back and watched the video of the speech and discovered the error. If we use the original shortened version, we should include ellipsis to indicate that part of the quote was removed. So the two choices are:
Option 1: "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he stated: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."
Option 2: "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he stated: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."
Rreagan007 (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- If we are to provide a direct quote (and I think that we should) we should provide the entire, unedited quote. Using an ellipsis is for removing extra words that do not change the meaning, and you will never get a consensus that this is true in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think there's already agreement to use (1) the complete words. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I also think using the complete quote is better. It gives the full context, and I think until we actually include the entire quote rather than paraphrases or partial quotes, many people will still be unsatisfied. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Support Option 1: This is the best choice IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if we really want to quote Trump's words verbatim, it's getting a bit long-winded, because Trump is ad-libbing. Per the cited Sky News source,[112] the full quote would be:
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
- That is in my opinion too long, and the middle part is superfluous. I think we can dispense with "not sending you" and "lots of problems" parts, therefore use option 2, which got full agreement in the discussion above before somebody edited the quote. — JFG talk 03:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Full agreement??" What are you talking about? Version 1 cleans up the stutter and gives the entire sense of the quote. Version 2 is artfully edited to convey something less than what Trump stated. Where was there full agreement to use the sanitized #2? SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- As our esteemed colleague Scjessey noted above, Rreagan007 edited his proposed quote at 20:38 UTC,[113] after all participating editors in this thread so far had agreed to what is now called "option 2": Scjessey, MONGO, Galobtter, Guy Macon, MelanieN and myself. After that edit and Scjessey's clarification, Guy Macon, you and Gandydancer picked the longer "option 1" version. — JFG talk 03:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) We could also perhaps use an extra quote from the same source, whereby Trump clarified that he was not only talking about Mexicans, but also immigrants from Central America coming via Mexico.
You have people coming in, and I'm not just saying Mexicans - I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists, and they're coming into this country.
What do you think? — JFG talk 03:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)- We're not going to get into the "clarify" and "it was just a joke" and "what I really meant" revisions. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody else than you talked about a joke; Trump certainly did not. And he was always clear about who the source of crime and drugs was, in his view: immigrants from Central America crossing Mexico, especially gangs from Colombia and El Salvador. This played out repeatedly. — JFG talk 03:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, he wasn't always clear. That is one of his problems, and he gets himself into trouble at times with his words. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- JFG, you are the one who suggested using a revisionist version that changes "Mexico sending us its people" to some otherstuff about Central America. You might as well say he was discussing the Superbowl. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not "revisionist" to add relevant information that was duly noted by RS. Please stay focused on the edits at hand instead of distracting your fellow editors with "jokes" and "the Superbowl". — JFG talk 05:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Depends what you mean. If Trump had done it, that would have been revisionist. If a WP editor does it, that's called "SYNTH". Unless you have a citation that verifies Trump's famous statement (you know, the one we're discussing here) really being about Central Americans just passin' thru Mexico, there's no possible justification for your proposed revisionist version. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not "revisionist" to add relevant information that was duly noted by RS. Please stay focused on the edits at hand instead of distracting your fellow editors with "jokes" and "the Superbowl". — JFG talk 05:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody else than you talked about a joke; Trump certainly did not. And he was always clear about who the source of crime and drugs was, in his view: immigrants from Central America crossing Mexico, especially gangs from Colombia and El Salvador. This played out repeatedly. — JFG talk 03:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- We're not going to get into the "clarify" and "it was just a joke" and "what I really meant" revisions. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Full agreement??" What are you talking about? Version 1 cleans up the stutter and gives the entire sense of the quote. Version 2 is artfully edited to convey something less than what Trump stated. Where was there full agreement to use the sanitized #2? SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support Option 2 - I prefer the shortened version with the ellipsis for brevity. I think the removed bit adds no useful context. With that said, I don't have any strong objection to option 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support Option 2 I did know what that the entire quote was much longer (which is why I added the ellipsis); "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people" is the most quoted and most important portion, with the rest being quite unnecessary to include; "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them." doesn't add anything, as the problems are described in the next sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support Option 1 But its a detail and I won't make an arbcom case if option #2 gets adopted instead. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support option 1 of course. Because it's complete and gives true context. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support Option 1 per SPECIFICO above. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- 2 per Galobtter, with two changes. The period preceding the ellipsis is missing, and, per MOS:ELLIPSIS, there should be a space on each side of the ellipsis. Suggest coding
best. ... They're
. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC) - Support Option 2 Brevity is the soul and all. But, don’t object to either option. O3000 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support Option 1 Just use the full quote, covers all the bases and gives full context. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support Option 1: A significant percentage of our readers will object to editing the words of Donald Trump. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Whichever version is used, a video-clip illustration (if available) would be appropriate for this signature campaign-launch statement. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I added the link to the C-SPAN video on YouTube to both [114] and to [115]. The transcript of the speech was already cited in the Announcement_speech section, and I added it to the Racial_views section, as well. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support Option 1 per reasoning of PackMecEng. Greg L (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- At what point during this ongoing discussion (in this thread and in [116]) was there consensus to replace the previous wording "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists" with a direct quote, never mind which direct quote? If I had to choose between the two direct quotes presented so far, I’d choose Option 2. As for Option 1, the quote is incorrect. Trump didn’t say "they're bringing those problems with them", he said "they're bringing those problems with us". And both quotes are incomplete without the sentences that follow. So, here’s Option 3: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. … They’re sending us not the right people." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Naw. Your proposed Option 3 is poor encyclopedic prose because it begs a question and the paragraph in which that quote is imbedded does nothing to explain the begged question.
The penultimate sentence in your expanded quote mentions “it” (And it only makes common sense); which is to say, the expanded version you are proposing begs the question of what, now, is the subject being discussed. Furthermore, your proposal again employs the ellipsis we’re trying to address.
One could arbitrarily expand the passage being quoted upwards and downwards by increasing amounts but Option 1 seems to strike the best compromise for serving the interest of our readership by not employing an ellipsis that replaced key wording from the middle of the quoted passage. Greg L (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- My preferred version is still the original one which is short and to the point and omits all of the direct speech argle-bargle and the need to "edit the words of Donald Trump", as another editor put it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- We should quote the entire speech, lest we edit the words of Donald Trump. It follows that we should report every damn word the man says. We'll need another spinoff article, Things Donald Trump has said. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Greg L: It's not "key wording" so much as word salad, and it doesn't "serv[e] the interest of our readership" in the slightest. The meaning is plain whether it is left in or out, and it provides no additional context. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Naw. Your proposed Option 3 is poor encyclopedic prose because it begs a question and the paragraph in which that quote is imbedded does nothing to explain the begged question.
Now that the furor has died down and we are close to a consensus, I would once again like to repeat that the claim "he described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists" is not in the source cited and that I was entirely correct to change it to "he described some Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists."[117]. Those who reverted and or criticized me for such an obviously correct action should take a long hard look at whether they are allowing their political views to interfere with the basic principle that the claim should match the citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, it hasn't, no, we're not, and your proposed change still incorrectly reflects the sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=843183191. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it has, yes we are, and his proposed change is accurate, encyclopedic, and concise. What's more, content should not "reflect the sources", rather, the prose written is to be supported by sources - you have it backwards, Space. We don't parrot sources, we write content with original prose and use reliable sources to back it up. Guy has been here a long time, has ten-of-thousands more edits than both of us put together, and I assure you that he is always thorough as well as honest in his dealings here in Wikipedia. I trust his assessment and agree with it. You should, too. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
content should not "reflect the sources", rather, the prose written is to be supported by sources
- Since that distinction is lost on me, I'm apparently no match for your intellect, Winkelvi. To my limited mind, "reflect the sources" seems quite consistent with the first paragraph at WP:NPOV. I've always said Wikipedia policy is too complicated and nuanced for simple folk like me. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)- Huh, me too. I wish maybe there'd be a WP:Simple guide to NPOV for folk like us. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry you're both having trouble understanding the difference between "represent" (take the place of in some respect and aspect) and "reflect" (to mirror, provide an image of what's seen in proximity). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's a useful distinction, thanks. WP:Simple guide to NPOV would be neat indeed. — JFG talk 05:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm just too simple to cherry-pick the one sense of a word that gives me something to argue about. Probably I've also been misled by the rampant use of the phrase "reflect the sources" throughout the project. Thank you for enlightening us. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting any change. The versions that are currently being discussed are better than what I wrote or the lie I was replacing. Nor do have a problem with the claim that my edit also imperfectly reflected what is in the source -- that's why we have discussions and that's why we now have a couple of choices that are far better than my original effort at fixing the source/claim mismatch.
- I do not wish to single any one person out, but could someone thinks my edit was not an improvement please explain how the hell you can support an article saying that Trump described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists when the source clearly says that Trump described some Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists? If you cannot see the difference or cannot see that the source contradicts the claim, then perhaps you can tell me, when you went to school, whether you rode on the short bus or the long bus...
- And yes, I have been editing Wikipedia for 12 years, have made 40,000 edits with zero blocks or other sanctions, and am the author of the well-regarded essay WP:1AM. That doesn't make me any better than a new editor, but please consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, I know what I am talking about. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry you're both having trouble understanding the difference between "represent" (take the place of in some respect and aspect) and "reflect" (to mirror, provide an image of what's seen in proximity). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Huh, me too. I wish maybe there'd be a WP:Simple guide to NPOV for folk like us. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it has, yes we are, and his proposed change is accurate, encyclopedic, and concise. What's more, content should not "reflect the sources", rather, the prose written is to be supported by sources - you have it backwards, Space. We don't parrot sources, we write content with original prose and use reliable sources to back it up. Guy has been here a long time, has ten-of-thousands more edits than both of us put together, and I assure you that he is always thorough as well as honest in his dealings here in Wikipedia. I trust his assessment and agree with it. You should, too. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Edits to the lede
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would think this edit by Rreagan007 (talk · contribs) is in violation of the active Arbcom remedies concerning post-1932 US politics in that it substantively restores a challenged edit, particularly as no effort to discuss the matter on this talk page was even attempted. My view is that the Deputy Attorney General was acting on behalf of the Justice Department, and so it should've been left alone. Moreover, the full details of the appointment (including that the Deputy Attorney General was responsible for the appointment itself) are already in the body of the article. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I read the edit note reverting my first edit that my edit was accurate but too much detail for the lead, so I reduced the amount of detail. It was a good faith edit and I think an improvement, as it is more accurate. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I get that, and I am sure it was in good faith; nevertheless, you restored challenged material - a violation. Also, I think it is redundant, and not an improvement at all. Remember we are trying to keep the lede as concise as possible. I suggest you self-revert to avoid sanction, then let this discussion play out. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Saying "the Justice Department" really isn't any more concise than saying "the deputy attorney general", and the latter is more precise than the other. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Scjessey. Rreagan007, you should self-revert and the material should not be restored unless there is consensus to do so.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I do not believe I am in violation here, as I did not restore the same challenged edit. I took the constructive criticism of my edit in the edit summary and incorporated that constructive criticism into a new edit. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Rreagan007: It's not quite a simple as that. Rosenstein was acting in his capacity as "Acting Attorney General" on behalf of the Department of Justice. While it is true the deputy was the individual responsible for making the appointment, it was with the full backing of the entire DoJ. Furthermore, Rosentein has been personally attacked by a subject of the investigation (an individual who shall remain nameless), and by extension, that individual has attacked the entire Justice Department. But with all that aside, your edit is still a violation, so self-revert and let the discussion play out, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Rreagan007: I can see from multiple entries on your talk page that you have been fully informed of the active Arbcom remedies, so I suggest you follow them. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Arbcom states that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." I did not reinstate an edit that had been challenged, it was a different edit that was adjusted based on the stated reason it had been challenged. That's not a violation. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Scjessey. Rreagan007, you should self-revert and the material should not be restored unless there is consensus to do so.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Saying "the Justice Department" really isn't any more concise than saying "the deputy attorney general", and the latter is more precise than the other. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I get that, and I am sure it was in good faith; nevertheless, you restored challenged material - a violation. Also, I think it is redundant, and not an improvement at all. Remember we are trying to keep the lede as concise as possible. I suggest you self-revert to avoid sanction, then let this discussion play out. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You added Rod Rosenstein deputy attorney general twice. Minorly rearranging the words is unlikely to exonerate you from the consequences of violating the editing restriction.- MrX 🖋 18:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- It was a substantively different edit in a way that incorporated the criticism of the first edit. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You added Rod Rosenstein deputy attorney general twice. Minorly rearranging the words is unlikely to exonerate you from the consequences of violating the editing restriction.- MrX 🖋 18:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
If your edit is challenged, work out wording on the talk page before reinstating similar content. @Rreagan007: Arbcom did not set these restrictions. Admins, including myself, did. --NeilN talk to me 18:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Where exactly is that language from? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Read the very first bullet point at the top of this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing "before reinstating similar content" there. Am I missing something? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note I will be making a change to the wording of the template to cut off this recent spate of wikilaywering (twice this week). Most editors realize that changing a couple words in a challenged addition isn't going to hold up if they get dragged to AE. --NeilN talk to me 18:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine going forward, but applying this new standard to me ex post facto would be a gross injustice. In fact, you admitting that the language needs to be changed is an admission that I did not violate the current standard as written. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a new standard. Do you really think editors could get around this restriction by changing one word in a paragraph, for example? --NeilN talk to me 18:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- But that is not what I did. My change was not a trivial change like one word in an entire paragraph, it was substantively different in a way that took into account the very reason it had been challenged in the first place. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a new standard. Do you really think editors could get around this restriction by changing one word in a paragraph, for example? --NeilN talk to me 18:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine going forward, but applying this new standard to me ex post facto would be a gross injustice. In fact, you admitting that the language needs to be changed is an admission that I did not violate the current standard as written. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Read the very first bullet point at the top of this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
A sentence is going to be added after the first consensus required sentence: "This includes making similar edits to the ones that have been challenged." I hope this will be enough to make editors realize and observe the purpose of the restriction. --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with the change, and let's please cut Rreagan007 some slack; I'm sure s/he was acting in good faith. I saw their change after my revert and refrained from commenting. Now things have been explained, and the positive outcome is more clarity in the "consensus required" wording. Nice. Let's all move on. — JFG talk 19:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Grammar Nazism dictates: "This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged."
Of course editors will argue endlessly about the precise definition of "similar", so I would like to know whether Rreagan007's actions would have been different with that exact sentence present. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)- @Mandruss: Thank you. I will use that. Further wording tweaks can be suggested at Template talk:American politics AE. --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I fully admit that my edit was similar to the one that was challenged. If that had been the wording, I would have reverted the edit myself when confronted with that wording as being the standard. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Grammar Nazism dictates: "This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged."
Listen, folks, you have got to take the Discretionary Sanctions SERIOUSLY. They are intended to prevent edit warring - exactly the type of edit warring that we saw over the Wharton claims and the quote in Racial Views. An administrator has had to intervene twice in the past two days to stop people from reverting each other. Consider yourselves lucky that this particular administrator has preferred to deal with this kind of problem by telling people to cut it out; many admins would simply wade in and hand out sanctions. Don’t expect this leniency to last. And don’t justify yourselves by saying “yes, but my revert was correct.” If an issue is being disputed, don’t try to count reverts and challenges to figure out if you can get away with another revert. Don’t WikiLawyer your way into a topic ban. Leave the “wrong” version in place while you take the question to the talk page and work out consensus - as was done in the section above this one. (In the Wharton discussion, when my insertion of what I interpreted as consensus got reverted, I immediately said to “let things lie for the moment” - which didn’t happen; people got into a revert war.) That kind of back-and-forth is FORBIDDEN by the DS and you all know better. Don’t do it again. If somebody else does it, don’t revert them; take it to the talk page, or take a complaint about them to an admin. But if it is disputed, don’t take it upon yourself to put it back the way you think it should be. Everybody got this? (Sorry for belated comment, I’ve been AFC (away from computer) all day.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm feeling like this is from another parallel universe. If Admins were jumping in to enforce DS the problems -- many many problems -- would come to a quick end. The "leniency" will only end when the burden is not on the shoulders of a single volunteer Admin and when a larger group of Admins gets to know the article and the editors as well as the ones who particate here. That text in the DS is clearly intended to say don't restore any content rather than any edit, but I think we all knew that. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I did not know that. I read the words as they were written. If you're going to be imposing sanctions for some type of behavior you are trying to discourage, you must clearly state what the standard is. For there to be justice, any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the accused according to the rule of lenity. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: No, it doesn't mean that, and thankfully we don't all "know" that. It means exactly what it says. If a removal is disputed, consensus is required to remove. Consensus is not required to enforce that rule. This has been affirmed again and again by admins. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Mandruss, I don't understand what you are saying. The point is it doesn't mean literally the same edit, i.e. a revert, it means the same content, i.e. substantially the same meaning. Could you rephrase your objection to what I am saying? thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- But what I did wasn't the same content or even substantially the same content. It was similar, but substantively different, and different in a way that was appropriate given what the original stated objection to it was. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Rreagan007: You think it was appropriate. You may be right. But you may also be wrong or be introducing other issues with your changes. That's why you are required to get explicit agreement for the proposed change. --NeilN talk to me 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, it was appropriate given the rules at the time and the facts and circumstances surrounding the edit. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Rreagan007: You think it was appropriate. You may be right. But you may also be wrong or be introducing other issues with your changes. That's why you are required to get explicit agreement for the proposed change. --NeilN talk to me 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- But what I did wasn't the same content or even substantially the same content. It was similar, but substantively different, and different in a way that was appropriate given what the original stated objection to it was. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I may have mistaken your statement as the common misconception (there is a distinct similarity). If you don't disagree with my previous comment, I withdraw it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Mandruss, I don't understand what you are saying. The point is it doesn't mean literally the same edit, i.e. a revert, it means the same content, i.e. substantially the same meaning. Could you rephrase your objection to what I am saying? thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Let me try this again. It’s really very simple. If there is dispute what to say about a given subject or point, it DOESN’T MATTER whether you are reverting or restoring the exact same wording or making a a modification to the wording or whatever. If a passage has been disputed, if there is a discussion going on, then DON’T MAKE CHANGES about that subject or point until consensus is reached. The goal of the DS is stability of the article. Back-and-forth changes violate that goal.
- This is not hard, folks. Quit quibbling; recognize that the purpose of the DS is to try to impose some order at subjects that are highly edited and controversial; honor the spirit of that goal as well as the letter. Rreagan, quit being so defensive. Nobody is threatening you for past behavior. Just accept the clarification and move on. SPECIFICO, I’m not sure who your haughty scolding is directed toward - Rreagan, NeilN, or me - but it is uncalled for in any case. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I honestly did not think there was a dispute as I thought I had resolved the dispute with my second edit given how I read the edit summary. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Omissions from the introduction
- Why doesn't the intro state Trump's record low approval rating, as described in the body? [at Donald Trump#Political image.]
- Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers? [also described in the body: Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump#False statements.]
- Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments?
- Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump?
I propose that these omissions from the introduction be corrected. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Check the archives of this page, that has all been discussed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- In order: "approval ratings" are extremely variable, I'm sure Nixon had worse at some point. There's nothing particularly meaningful to say there. Regarding fact-checkers, "many of his public statements were controversial or false" should cover that, though it's a bit buried in its current location. Regarding indictments: the Russia thing is already talked about, I'm not sure that a "record number of criminal indictments" specifically is worth discussing. The resignations/firings are certainly unusual, if you have a specific sentence to propose I might support that addition. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Let's just take the first one. How "extreme" is "extremely variable"? And "at some point" is not the appropriate point of comparison. The appropriate point of comparison is "the same number of days into a presidency". And the only president who has come close to being so unpopular for so long is Gerald Ford (Nixon (almost) never dipped below 50%, while Trump has never broke 46%) [118]
- That's the thing - why this is such a glaring omission. Yes, maybe for a "normal" president, approval ratings are indeed "extremely variable" (generally not true, but let's say it is). But not for *this* president. They've been consistently low, staying in the range between 37% and 45%. THAT makes it a notable fact in and of itself and THAT is why it should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- (the other unique aspect of this presidency, is that most presidents start with HIGH approval ratings and then go downhill from there (exception is Bush Jr. who got a big boost after 9/11. And Reagan and Clinton managed a bit of a comeback towards the end of their second term). Trump started low and stayed low.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- The proof of his unpopularity will be GOP losses in the House in November. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe (Congress is generally more unpopular than the President, and that unpopularity tends to be more bipartisan). But that's a separate topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- The proof of his unpopularity will be GOP losses in the House in November. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with these questions, although arguably they apply even more to the article Presidency of Donald Trump. The fact that #1, #3 and #4 - which are very very widely discussed in sources - are absent from that article is a reflection of the very successful campaign waged by pro-Trump editors to keep anything remotely negative out of our Trump related articles (I believe this was noted by User:Jimbo Wales. And the main reason they have been able to do this, despite representing a minority of editors on Wikipedia is the ridiculous "cannot restore without consensus" (a consensus which, with just a bit of bad faith, is easy to sabotage) "Discretionary Sanctions" which has given an effective right veto to a small but very vocal and tendentious minority. The administrator who invented out of thin air and imposed this sanction is gone but his sanction remains (and even he eventually had second thoughts about it).
Unfortunately Wikipedia has always suffered from extreme inertia, so good luck remedying this situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Clarification! See User:Jimbo Wales's contemporaneous comment about "our Trump-related articles". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Volunteer Marek: The editing restrictions improve article stability, and they work both to quench pro-Trump and anti-Trump partisanship. The "consensus required" provision is akin to a strict enforcement of WP:BRD, which has prevented many edit wars. The list of codified consensus also avoids fruitless repeats of prior discussions on controversial issues. The article would be a total mess without this code of conduct. — JFG talk 19:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- "The editing restrictions improve article stability" - they improve stability by making it impossible to edit the article. You know what else "improves stability"? Full protection and article lock down. No more edit warring. Because no one can edit. This has pretty much the same effect. "Article stability" is a bullshit goal that only clueless administrators who don't care about content believe in. Or, I guess, those who realize that "article stability" preserves their preferred POV version. Like I said, the practical result of this particular AC/DS sanction is to give veto power to a single pro-Trump editor or a couple pro-Trump editors who can effectively block any improvements to the article if these aren't sufficiently obsequious of the "god-emperor". That's the sorry state we're in right now.
- And no, the "consensus required" provision is nothing like WP:BRD. The "consensus required" provision is a straight up veto power over any changes to the article. It's actually very much against the spirit of Wikipedia which relies on collaborative and gradual improvement, as well as being bold.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you think that editing restrictions amount to "veto power" for pro-Trump editors, surely you must recognize they also amount to "veto power" for anti-Trump editors. You have as much "veto rights" as your political opponents, and that's the way it should be because of the Five Pillars. We have been here long enough to see what a train wreck the article and the talk page were before the restrictions were imposed. I for one don't want to go back there. — JFG talk 22:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- " surely you must recognize they also amount to "veto power" for anti-Trump editors." <-- this is true but it misses the point. That's NOT a good thing either. Giving any side, any editor (or in this case a group of editors) veto power is contrary to the values of the encyclopedia. Articles are suppose to be improved and updated, not stagnate because of a stalemate situation. (5 pillars have nothing to do with this)
- And actually there are two reasons why the situation isn't symmetric. First, it's just the nature of the Trump presidency itself. Let's face it, this presidency has stumbled from scandal to scandal, from one crazy tweet to another, from one lie to another, from one indictment to another, from one resignation to another appointment of some crazy person. Incidents that would have toppled any other administration occur on monthly or weekly basis. Most of the stuff that pops up organically is negative because, quite simply it's a negative presidency. In such a situation the veto power to keep negative OUT is worth much more than the veto power to keep the positive OUT for the very simple reason that with this president... there just isn't much positive anyway.
- The second reason why it's not symmetric just has to with the nature of the editors. I'm sorry to say, and yes, this is a generalization which does not apply to every editor, but broadly speaking the pro-Trump editors are a lot less likely to WP:GAME the restriction and Wikipedia policies and to act in bad faith. Why do you think there's a constant churn of topic bans for such editors going through WP:AE and WP:ANI? No, it's not bias, it's just that as a group, these pro-Trump editors are helluva more disruptive. And of course there's nothing surprising about this. Go to any other social media site like reddit or facebook or whatever and it's the same story - pro-Trump users (again, as a group) doing stupid, offensive shit, getting themselves banned then coming up with "cute" ways of trying to circumvent their restrictions. That's like the whole internet right now. So you have a situation where one side acts in good faith, the other side acts in bad faith... guess whom an absolutist sanction such as this one benefits most? It's a no brainer.
- It's a bad sanction. It kills articles. It goes against spirit of Wikipedia. And the 5 pillars.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Unlike you, I recognize the difference between my biased perspective and objective fact. Guy Macon recently expressed the situation quite well, and I paraphrase: "Modern politicans' ability to deceive us far exceeds our ability to detect deception." Under those circumstances there is very little room for Objective Truth about politicians, but many experienced editors on both sides persist in presenting their opinions as exactly that. Most of them fail to even recognize that they have a bias; they are simply among the righteous minority who have true integrity and clarity of vision. Sometimes courage of conviction is indistinguishable from a load of crap. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The editing environment has never been worse than at present. The editing is entirely reactive, following day-to-day news items. Many articles have gone completely dead after tendentious deadlocks. And fringe/POV editors in any topic area will by definition be more highly motivated to disrupt articles than mainstream NPOV editors, because NPOV editing is relatively easy and relatively simple and the mainstream offers an abundance of RS from which to create valid content. Mainstream editors are generally content to see mainstream content. Fringe POV editors in any subject -- this has been widely noted for years -- are by definition aggrieved and motivated to challenge the mainstream narrative. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree on the state of the editing environment: this talk page is astonishingly quiet compared to 2016 and the first half of 2017. However I agree on your rejection of fringe-POV editors: editing restrictions are a potent vaccine against them. — JFG talk 22:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- This talk page is quiet for the reason Marek articulated. It's hamstrung by a dysfunction I tried to explicate further. The current restrictions have paralyzed the Politics pages because small groups of vocal and insistent editors claim there's "no consensus" by voting in ways that ignore or deny fundamental WP editing policies and guidelines. That was not the intent of the restrictions and that would not be permitted if there were a large group of Admins closely following these articles and the editors here. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
"fringe/POV editors in any topic area will by definition be more highly motivated to disrupt articles"
POV editors, yes. Just "fringe" POV editors? No. From my observation, the POV editors who daily take advantage of and game the system at the DS and AR articles are hardly fringe. The stalemate they create is why we can no longer have nice things in Wikipedia when it comes to editing ("nice things" being AGF, collaborative editing, and consensus the way it is meant to be). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree on the state of the editing environment: this talk page is astonishingly quiet compared to 2016 and the first half of 2017. However I agree on your rejection of fringe-POV editors: editing restrictions are a potent vaccine against them. — JFG talk 22:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you think that editing restrictions amount to "veto power" for pro-Trump editors, surely you must recognize they also amount to "veto power" for anti-Trump editors. You have as much "veto rights" as your political opponents, and that's the way it should be because of the Five Pillars. We have been here long enough to see what a train wreck the article and the talk page were before the restrictions were imposed. I for one don't want to go back there. — JFG talk 22:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "consensus required" would be a problem without the "informal polls" on every question -- where the first-mover gets to frame the question, narrowing it to a binary choice. Then the so-called poll, which is in fact a vote, can easily muster enough !votes to suggest that if it's not unanimous it's not consensus, even when the minority is arguing against good RS cited content or when it is advocating UNDUE, SYNTH, and cute twists of language to block restoration of a straightforward, well-sourced edit. Admins should be able to break these logjams, because they're basically arguments against content and sourcing PAG's, but there are not enough Admins paying attention to these articles. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's hogwash. Some questions are quickly decided, some are settled (or not) by a quick survey, some require a broader debate via RfC. All methods of reaching consensus and improving the article quality are equally valid. Only bad-faith editors resort to "cute twists of language", as you say. — JFG talk 22:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you seek to change the way things are done on this page, please do it separately. It fails basic principles of organization to scatter general comments about process throughout specific content discussions. Any change would require editor focus, thorough examination, and careful thought, and we can't begin to do that in a content discussion. Short version: You're off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "consensus required" would be a problem without the "informal polls" on every question -- where the first-mover gets to frame the question, narrowing it to a binary choice. Then the so-called poll, which is in fact a vote, can easily muster enough !votes to suggest that if it's not unanimous it's not consensus, even when the minority is arguing against good RS cited content or when it is advocating UNDUE, SYNTH, and cute twists of language to block restoration of a straightforward, well-sourced edit. Admins should be able to break these logjams, because they're basically arguments against content and sourcing PAG's, but there are not enough Admins paying attention to these articles. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- And this is not the Page semi-protected Presidency of Donald Trump article, so what goes on there is irrelevant to this none.
- As to the points raised.
- Why doesn't the intro state Trump's record low approval rating, as described in the body? Because it is a variable, and hardly one of the most important anythings about him.
- Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers, If you mean fact checking websites. Is his at a record low, a source for that please (and also again this would be variable).
- Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments?, is it a record number it is lower then a number of presidents and may of the incitements listed are nothing to do directly with him.
- Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump, valid point, can any one give a good reason why not?Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Because it is a variable, and hardly one of the most important anythings about him." Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, this just isn't true. His approval rating has been fairly stable, moving in the 37-45 range, which is below pretty much ANY president (except Gerald Ford) since approval ratings were a thing. And while it may not be the "most important thing" here, it most certainly is one of the most important things about his presidency. So at the very least it should be in that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would not say a 10 point difference if fairly stable (ohh and in January it was as low as 36, now up to 40 (WELL LAST TIME i CHECKED)). And again this is not the place to discus what we do on another article. And a number of presidents have had lower approval ratings, hardly therefore a record breaker.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Because it is a variable, and hardly one of the most important anythings about him." Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, this just isn't true. His approval rating has been fairly stable, moving in the 37-45 range, which is below pretty much ANY president (except Gerald Ford) since approval ratings were a thing. And while it may not be the "most important thing" here, it most certainly is one of the most important things about his presidency. So at the very least it should be in that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Let’s remember that this article is a biography of Donald Trump. He has already lived a long and colorful and highly-reported life before becoming president, and we can’t let the lede act as if nothing else in his life mattered.
- 1: Approval ratings: not even in the article as far as I can tell; way too transient to be mentioned in the lede. AFAIK polling results are never mentioned in the lede of a currently serving politician (see Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, etc.); there is usually some kind of summary in the lede for former presidents but Trump is not that. Maybe we could insert a link somewhere pointing to the highly detailed and current article Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration.
- 2 is discussed in the body in detail, in its own subsection “False statements”, and it is implied in the lede, in wording that has been repeatedly debated and consensus reached to do it exactly as it now is.
- 3 - several of the indictments are mentioned in the Investigation section.
- 4 is in the article, under Personnel.
- I oppose adding any of these things to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- All of the points raised have been addressed, no change is necessary until new developments occur. Same rationale as MelanieN. — JFG talk 19:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: the sources you are looking for are at Donald Trump#Political image for the record low approval ratings, and Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump#False statements for the worst fact-checking reviews in history. Yes, all of these facts are already in the body of the article. Why are these four record-breaking statistics among all presidents not worthy of inclusion in the introduction? EllenCT (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that with Trump, far more than any President in my lifetime, new developments occur pretty much every day. Hopefully without offending his fans or critics, I think it's fair to say that he does an awful lot of things far removed what has historically been seen as normal for a President. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- No idea what your lifetime span entails, but I've been on this earth through 12 presidencies. Trust me, Trump is not unique in this. LBJ, from the moment he took office on through Nixon's inauguration in 1969, did a lot of things that were considered far removed from what was seen as normal (whatever "normal" is supposed to be). There was something new with him almost continually. Same with Nixon. Same with Bush 43. The Clinton presidency - and candidacy - had something new all the time that dominated the news. And that's really the issue: the news. We knew a lot about Clinton, especially during the second term. The internet helped with that, didn't it? And with Bush 43. Which brings me to the obvious point: it's the presence of the internet and 24/7 news that makes it seem Trump is doing something continually that is controversial. And let's be honest: media *is* biased against Trump, the "coverage" on him is continuous and continuously, overwhelmingly negative (see this Politio article from 2016 [119] and this WaPo article from 2017 [120]). Of course it seems as if Trump is constantly doing "stuff" because it's constantly in our faces and constantly negative (the numbers don't lie). Just imagine what it would have been like had the internet and 24/7 news existed when LBJ and Nixon were president. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not as old as you but I certainly lived through some of these. And it was NOTHING like this. A scandal or big news would occur once every six months or so. This crap happens everyday. This is like that other discussion we had where despite your longer years you were completely off about factual matters (I'm too lazy to find a link to that discussion but I'm sure you remember).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- There's certainly far more drama than Obama or Bush43. It's comparable to Clinton, though due to the internet and the Twitter echo chamber (which Trump partakes in) its effect is stronger. I'm not nearly old enough to remember LBJ. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am posting my observations as a non-American. I stand by my comments from my perspective of a long way away. Maybe Twitter is the difference. Oh, I am not young. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Winkelvi, if you honestly think it’s just the press coverage that makes Trump seem like an entirely new kind of president - well, I really don’t know what to say except that I disagree. Trump is so different from the “norm” in so many ways that no president in my lifetime has compared to him. Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush - they at least mostly followed normal standards for behavior and actions of a president. Trump is something new. Just for starters: his continual attacks on the Justice Department and the FBI - what president, Republican or Democratic, has ever torn down the country’s law enforcement like that? His method for making policy decisions, apparently on impulse and without any input from, or even in opposition to, all his advisors. His wealth, and his secretiveness about how he got it; no president in memory has refused to show us his tax returns. His constant habit of lying - not the occasional exaggeration or twisting the truth like all politicians do, but simply stating as fact things that are false, and continuing to repeat them after they have been debunked; all the fact checkers (and thank God for them) say they can’t keep up, they have never seen any politician at any level with such habitual disregard for facts. These are not things that previous presidents did and we just didn’t have an internet to report them; they are a brand new approach to how to be president. And we have no idea how much further from the norm he is going to go. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Noting that we are already in WP:FORUM territory, I'd like to correct one of the statements you just made:
His method for making policy decisions, apparently on impulse and without any input from, or even in opposition to, all his advisors.
From what I've seen since he took office, Trump takes lots of advice before making decisions, including listening to a broader set of stakeholders than just Washington officials and lobbyists. Despite the fear of impulsiveness that was prevalent upon his election, he has acted decisively yet calmly on many, many issues. He also knew to take steps backwards when it was necessary, so that the tango dance for example on North Korea is unlocking a situation that looked hopeless for decades. Observers are troubled by his "fire and fury" style, but when you ignore the noise and look at policy outcomes, the Trump presidency doesn't look all that different from any others. It is particularly remarkable given the hostility he had to face personally from his own party in addition to classic opposition. — JFG talk 05:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC) "if you honestly think it’s just the press coverage that makes Trump seem like an entirely new kind of president"
MelanieN, I never said anything of the kind. I was responding to HiLo's comments, "with Trump, far more than any President in my lifetime, new developments occur pretty much every day". Never mentioned the type of man or president Trump is in comparison with the others preceding him. HiLo's comments were in regard to the developments we are made aware of, I responded to that very topic. Can't imagine how you thought otherwise. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 06:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Noting that we are already in WP:FORUM territory, I'd like to correct one of the statements you just made:
- Winkelvi, if you honestly think it’s just the press coverage that makes Trump seem like an entirely new kind of president - well, I really don’t know what to say except that I disagree. Trump is so different from the “norm” in so many ways that no president in my lifetime has compared to him. Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush - they at least mostly followed normal standards for behavior and actions of a president. Trump is something new. Just for starters: his continual attacks on the Justice Department and the FBI - what president, Republican or Democratic, has ever torn down the country’s law enforcement like that? His method for making policy decisions, apparently on impulse and without any input from, or even in opposition to, all his advisors. His wealth, and his secretiveness about how he got it; no president in memory has refused to show us his tax returns. His constant habit of lying - not the occasional exaggeration or twisting the truth like all politicians do, but simply stating as fact things that are false, and continuing to repeat them after they have been debunked; all the fact checkers (and thank God for them) say they can’t keep up, they have never seen any politician at any level with such habitual disregard for facts. These are not things that previous presidents did and we just didn’t have an internet to report them; they are a brand new approach to how to be president. And we have no idea how much further from the norm he is going to go. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am posting my observations as a non-American. I stand by my comments from my perspective of a long way away. Maybe Twitter is the difference. Oh, I am not young. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- No idea what your lifetime span entails, but I've been on this earth through 12 presidencies. Trust me, Trump is not unique in this. LBJ, from the moment he took office on through Nixon's inauguration in 1969, did a lot of things that were considered far removed from what was seen as normal (whatever "normal" is supposed to be). There was something new with him almost continually. Same with Nixon. Same with Bush 43. The Clinton presidency - and candidacy - had something new all the time that dominated the news. And that's really the issue: the news. We knew a lot about Clinton, especially during the second term. The internet helped with that, didn't it? And with Bush 43. Which brings me to the obvious point: it's the presence of the internet and 24/7 news that makes it seem Trump is doing something continually that is controversial. And let's be honest: media *is* biased against Trump, the "coverage" on him is continuous and continuously, overwhelmingly negative (see this Politio article from 2016 [119] and this WaPo article from 2017 [120]). Of course it seems as if Trump is constantly doing "stuff" because it's constantly in our faces and constantly negative (the numbers don't lie). Just imagine what it would have been like had the internet and 24/7 news existed when LBJ and Nixon were president. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ellen, there are a lot of things about him that are unique. We mention several of them in the lede: oldest, wealthiest, etc. There are others that we hint at. There are others that we don’t mention at this point; maybe their significance will become clearer in hindsight (after all we don’t know how his presidency is going to turn out) and will be added to the lede then. This is a very long article, the biography of a very full life; the lede is for summarizing the most important points; for now, the things you want to add to the lede do not seem to have achieved consensus that they belong there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that with Trump, far more than any President in my lifetime, new developments occur pretty much every day. Hopefully without offending his fans or critics, I think it's fair to say that he does an awful lot of things far removed what has historically been seen as normal for a President. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Indictments" number seem overly broad. There are no ties between the russian nationalist hacker indictments and Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:3d22:c76d:817f:9403 (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Gorsuch appointment in the lead
I believe I supported this addition a year ago; at this point in his presidency I think there are more notable events to discuss in the lead section, and propose removing it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think it should be in the lede, but I don't have a strong opinion. Very notable and has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Are you proposing a simple removal, or a swap? I support the removal considering the developments since that time, and the fact that it was more so that he demanded the nuclear option rather than his specific pick. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- There's a constant stream of addition requests, so I'm not proposing any particular swap. Someone will use the space soon enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- A SCOTUS appointment is a big deal, and content on it has lasting value to Wikipedia since SCOTUS appointees have a seat until the end of time (or at least that's how it feels somewhat). I think it should stay, personally. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody is denying that a SCOTUS appointment is a big deal in general, but we need to consider in the context of a biography on the entire life of Donald Trump. WP:LASTING is about whether an event should have its own article not whether it should be mentioned in the lead of other article, MOS:LEAD is what we have to help us there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support removing it from the lead. I looked at all the other current SCOTUSes and the biographies of Presidents who put them there; none of them are mentioned in the lead, and are given as much prominence in the article as appointments to other courts. I don't oppose summarizing all of Trump's court appointments, as short as possible. wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Keep it for now. It's still considered a major thing, as the "balance of power" in the Supreme Court had been hotly debated since the death of Antonin Scalia. More lead-worthy than the "Cuban thaw" as of today. — JFG talk 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by cardiologists
Following a few edits to the Health section, Mandruss restored a version that had been discussed in January and modified by other editors since then:
Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health.[1]
Today I wrote instead:
Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level should raise "serious heart concerns".[1]
References
- ^ a b Shear, Michael D.; Kolata, Gina (January 17, 2018). "Trump's Physical Revealed Serious Heart Concerns, Outside Experts Say". The New York Times.
This is more precise and closer to the source article. I would advocate to keep this version. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 08:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
modified by other editors since then
- Yeah, apparently there is some misunderstanding that a consensus has to be in the list to require prior consensus to change it—enough of one for that change to slip by without challenge. The prior consensus rule predates the list, so that can't be the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)- Bygones. Now what is your opinion on the above two versions? — JFG talk 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think you know how I feel about these things. A lot of editor time is invested in the consensus version, I see no compelling reason to revisit, and I feel our limited time would be better spent on things that haven't received any attention. I think perfect is the enemy of good and the status quo is Good Enough. I don't claim that such discussions are strictly improper, but I generally sit them out. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Bygones. Now what is your opinion on the above two versions? — JFG talk 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- New versions seems better to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)