This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Readership | |
Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
Highlighted open discussions
- #RfC: Exercise, take 2, about how to address Trump's physical exercise habits
Current consensus
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)
1. Use theQueens, New York City, U.S.
" in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)
gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "
receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)
Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Removed from the lead per #47.
Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion.
(July 2018, July 2018)
Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)
without prior military or government service
". (Dec 2016)
Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)
10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)
12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)
13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)
14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies
(June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)
have sparked numerous protests.
22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)
Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.(Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).
25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)
26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow"
or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation"
. (RfC April 2018)
27. State that Trump falsely claimed
that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther
rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)
28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)
29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)
30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
" (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)
31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)
32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)
33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)
34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.(RfC Feb 2019)
37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)
38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)
39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)
40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.
(RfC Aug 2019)
41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)
42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020.
(Feb 2020)
43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)
44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)
46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)
47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)
48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
(Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)
49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
(Dec 2020)
50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
(March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)
51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)
52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)
53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)
54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.
(October 2021)
55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia
, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)
56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan
but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)
57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)
58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)
59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)
60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.
61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:
- Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
- Close the thread using
{{archive top}}
and{{archive bottom}}
, referring to this consensus item. - Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
- Manually archive the thread.
This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)
62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)
63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)
64. Omit the {{Very long}}
tag. (January 2024)
65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)
RfC: Exercise, take 2
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.
A recent discussion reached no consensus on how to mention Trump's exercise or lack thereof, but two options were deemed worthy of being discussed in a binary survey, so here it is. Which of these sentences should be tacked on to the first paragraph of Trump's "Health" section? — JFG talk 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option A:
Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.[1][2]
- Option B:
He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise",[3] although he usually does not walk the course.[4][5]
— JFG talk 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Survey
- Option B. If he says that golf is exercise for him, then he
doesn't notdoes exercise. He just does not do a whole lot. We don't really have much of an option except to take his word for it here. Mgasparin (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)- @Mgasparin: - hold up, it's not just his word. Here's White House Doctor Ronny Jackson in January 2018 [2] regarding Trump's exercise:
"Some people exercise, some people don’t. Some people just haven’t done that as part of their routine. And I would say that’s the category he falls in right now"
starship.paint (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Mgasparin: - hold up, it's not just his word. Here's White House Doctor Ronny Jackson in January 2018 [2] regarding Trump's exercise:
- Option D per BullRangifer's vote on 15 August. Second choice - option B. starship.paint (talk) - first voted 3 August, edited comment on 21 August.
- Option C - don't include - it does not have lasting encyclopedic value. If he dies from lack of exercise, then it will have lasting encyclopedic value. Atsme Talk 📧 01:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC) adding to my iVote: NOTCRYSTAL, NOTGOSSIP. Facts only, please - quote his doctor using in-text attribution if we include anything at all. 14:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option B. I agree with the added wording suggested by starship.paint. I think the entire wording should be "Trump was judged in 2018 to lack a history of exercising routinely. He has called golf his "primary form of exercise". (I'm omitting the last part which says "although he usually does not walk the course". I think it is unnecessary.) Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option B with the part regarding not walking the course..it is relevant to his health..if he has a heart attack things will change in the US probably dramatically 2600:1702:2340:9470:951D:EEE3:FE92:D97A (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option B.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option A Short and directly to the point of his health, which is the section it is in. Option B does not seem to have a direct connection to his health, just a random comment out of nowhere about how he plays golf. If people think Option A is too blunt and dismissive - since everyone gets at least some exercise - it could be reworded to "Trump does not have a formal exercise plan, viewing exercise as a waste of energy". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option B – A weekly round of golf is a reasonable form of exercise for a 73-years-old fat male (even when riding a cart along, per NPR: Golf Is Exercise, Cart Or No Cart). Why people are so upset that Trump does not hit the gym is beyond me. Orange man bad, I guess. — JFG talk 15:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- That (your NPR link) is not how the orange cheater plays golf, cart or no cart. Upset? The reactions were more bemused than bothered; you don’t hear the opinion every day that human bodies are like non-rechargeable batteries. Millions aren’t losing any sleep worrying about Trump’s physical health, at least not until they remember Pence. Trump attached a flashing neon target to his ample rump by harping on other people’s health and by having his physicians put out press releases gushing about "the healthiest individual ever" and "could live to be 200," and then Mr. Stamina had the stretch golf cart brought around to be driven 700 yards down a gently sloping road in Taormina while other world leaders walked. Forget the fish; that’s like shooting a big fat whale in a barrel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting - my Mom will be 96 next month - never exercised a day in her life - smoked 2 packs of cigs/day until she was in her 60s, retired last year, just drove 200 miles (each way) to see her great-great grandkids. It's all about genetics. Adhere to MEDRS, consensus from the AfD, and NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Following the ping, I reaffirm my choice of option B. Option D is too verbose, but if it is chosen, I would suggest trimming it to
He considers exercise a waste of energy
, not with the extra quotebecause he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.
— JFG talk 00:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- That (your NPR link) is not how the orange cheater plays golf, cart or no cart. Upset? The reactions were more bemused than bothered; you don’t hear the opinion every day that human bodies are like non-rechargeable batteries. Millions aren’t losing any sleep worrying about Trump’s physical health, at least not until they remember Pence. Trump attached a flashing neon target to his ample rump by harping on other people’s health and by having his physicians put out press releases gushing about "the healthiest individual ever" and "could live to be 200," and then Mr. Stamina had the stretch golf cart brought around to be driven 700 yards down a gently sloping road in Taormina while other world leaders walked. Forget the fish; that’s like shooting a big fat whale in a barrel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option A. I agree with MelanieN on this one; it's short and to the point, while the other option seems like a somewhat trivial comment about how he plays golf. --Tataral (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option A again. I thought, in fact, we already had a consensus for this. I hate it when we have duplicate surveys because people weren't happy with the way consensus went the first time. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: You had a low-participation discussion that was not closed, leaving the consensus question a bit fuzzy. Your preference led but was then defeated by a different option in a higher-participation discussion, strongly suggesting that it led because of the low participation. In my uninvolved close of the second discussion, I judged that that fact invalidated the first discussion, so blame me. Surely, any consensus worth a damn isn't reversed when you ask a larger crowd three weeks later. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- After receiving a ping about new options, I'm just here to reiterate my view that option A is the way to go. My second choice, since that's apparently a thing now, would be to exclude all mention completely. Driving around in a golf cart is not exercise, and never will be. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: You had a low-participation discussion that was not closed, leaving the consensus question a bit fuzzy. Your preference led but was then defeated by a different option in a higher-participation discussion, strongly suggesting that it led because of the low participation. In my uninvolved close of the second discussion, I judged that that fact invalidated the first discussion, so blame me. Surely, any consensus worth a damn isn't reversed when you ask a larger crowd three weeks later. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option B seems like the better of the two options, but whether it should really be included is a different question all together. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Emir of Wikipedia: - Option C has already been introduced. Feel free to argue for it instead. But "seems like the better of the two options" is essentially a democratic vote and one I would discard if I were to close this. Please say how or why it's better. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- B seems better to me as it includes more of the full context regarding Trump's exercise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Option Ais the better of the two, since it relates explicitly to exercise and his view of it. Option B is elevating a personal reflection to affirm, implicitly, that golf (walking or not) has anything to do with exercise or health. The article would be better with neither A nor B, but I guess that ship has sailed. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)- Option D Changing after ping about new choices. It gives biographical information about his personality and thinking. I wouldn't include this kind of subjective detail in his Presidency or other articles, but in the bio it adds a certain je ne sais quoi. The article wouldn't suffer terribly if C we left this out. We know it cannot be B, because that is SYNTH. As such, that option B should not even be an RfC option. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option C or neither – What I am seeing here is that Trump either does not exercise (as I do sometimes but regularly), or he does and the exercise is not quite vigorous. I would say that he does exercise to some extent in the form of playing golf, but not a lot. Perhaps a better option would be to state his opinion on exercise and his rather tame golf activity—which partly contradicts his opinion. I can do with or without Option C, but I personally cannot choose either of the first two options, since A excludes his golf activity and B unsatisfactorily describes Mr. Trump's attitude on exercise, apart from his golfing.
Gamingforfun365 22:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC) - Option D or Option A equally - These are straightforward, comprehensive, and appropriate weight, and have the best sources. I agree with the analysis by MelanieN, Tataral, and SPECIFICO. I could live with A+B (i.e., all the content together) if necessary but that would not be my first choice. I oppose Option B— there is absolutely no reason to cite his own Tweets and "Golf News Net" when far better sources are available. And Option C (excising all reference to it whatsoever) has no policy-based backing at all. Neutralitytalk 22:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option C. This is useless trivia that doesn't belong in a professional encyclopedia article. The article is already too long as it is, and useless trivia like this only compounds the problem. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option B - he does golf, that's well known. I still prefer it as more neutral in just saying what the exercise is. But I’m also still dubious that anything is needed. It seems like it was just put in as a means to do yet more sniping over trivial bits and is not a big part of his life or his coverage WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option B but favor Option C/Nothing - This is so uncyclopedic that I laughed out loud while reading the options. His frequent golfing could fit into the encyclopedia somewhere, so I'll side with Option B, but I'd prefer if "exercise" had nothing to do with its framing.LM2000 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment for closing administrator. Comments suggesting that this info is somehow unencyclopedic should receive little or no weight. Inclusion of this material is consistent with the principle that an encyclopedic biography should incorporate content on various aspects of the subject's life. Our article Dwight D. Eisenhower spends one whole paragraph on golf playing, plus at least two more paragraphs on his oil painting and bridge playing. The article George Washington spends a paragraph, plus another sentence, on his equestrian skills, theater attendance, and other hobbies. The article Jimmy Carter notes that "Carter's hobbies include painting, fly-fishing, woodworking, cycling, tennis, and skiing." Neutralitytalk 04:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option B, but favor Nothing at all. I think it's kind of ridiculous to put this in an encyclopedia but if it absolutely MUST be included, then I'd prefer the more informative option. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option A. The guy does not exercise. Stay short and concise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option A Use this as it is factual, (he's been quoted as such); not B, as it appears desperate to offer an editorial counter claim to negate any notion of exercise being taken. It also seems WP:OR. Bodding (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option B. Also -- mentioning both of his statements, or neither, would also be reasonable solutions.MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Nothing would be my first choice.Option B if I was forced to choose or both would also be acceptable if Option A was modified. Option A, as currently worded, is not specifically indicated by the sources it cites. The sources do not exactly say he does not exercise. They say (1) he does not use the fitness center in the White House and (2) he has given up athletics since college. To say he "does not exercise" would be synthesis, because what the sources say is that he believes that "exercise would be a waste of the energy" and depletes a human's "finite energy". That is not the same thing as he "does not exercise". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- I like Option
CD.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- @Coffeeandcrumbs: If you like it better than "Nothing", please modify your !vote to show it first. Throw the closer a bone, their job is hard enough already. And it can be shown as simply "Option D"; the strikethrough below was needed only to preserve context for ONUnicorn's Option C !vote below it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I rank my !vote in the following order D/C/B not A.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: If you like it better than "Nothing", please modify your !vote to show it first. Throw the closer a bone, their job is hard enough already. And it can be shown as simply "Option D"; the strikethrough below was needed only to preserve context for ONUnicorn's Option C !vote below it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I like Option
- Option B, but would prefer them combined in this fashion:
- Writing "nothing" would be too simple, uninformative, and a bit misleading because he is actually anti-exercise, and my version covers the subject quite thoroughly without actually saying "anti-exercise". -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option
CD (above). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC) - Option B per above.. option B gives the facts concisely and letting the reader interpret the facts as they are. Otherwise option C do not include.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Option D seems like the most accurate summary of the information we have. If forced to pick between the original two options, I would pick B. Loki (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Discussion
To inform you, there are additional options for your consideration presented after your vote was cast: Option C (do not include) and Option D (see BullRangifer's vote). starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Mgasparin, Bus stop, Jack Upland, and JFG: starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN, Scjessey, Tataral, and Emir of Wikipedia: starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Neutrality, SPECIFICO, Rreagan007, and Markbassett: starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MaximumIdeas, Bodding, Snooganssnoogans, and Cosmic Sans: starship.paint (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gamingforfun365 and LM2000: starship.paint (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
So do we have to !vote again? I reaffirm my preference for option A. Second choice, option C, do not mention. I oppose option D as TMI; a single sentence is enough for the Health section -- MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Why must there be a 'do over' on this? I can't believe that something this silly needed a RFA to begin with. As per Melanie, I reaffirm my choice of option A. Furthermore, once a question has been put to a vote, there are no other options to be put in. Who is making these decisions? Just because you don't like choices independent editors are taking, which is presumably why you have this ridiculous RFA to begin with, then that's it. That's the comment you requested. You don't then add in more options because you don't like the choices. Bodding (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. It's an absurd way to do things, and we already "voted" on this in an earlier thread. Quite often, people insist on new RfCs (or messing around with existing RfCs) because they were unhappy with the earlier result. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree that options should have been selected before going to a vote. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss and JFG: Can we get a close on this RfC and let it archive? It's just sitting here now, and no one's commented for some time. Mgasparin (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Trump claims that Democrats favor "executing" newborn babies
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=911205746&oldid=911178512
The cited reliable sources characterize it as "a staple of his rallies" and "what is fast becoming a standard, and inaccurate, refrain about doctors “executing babies,” and I can add "Trump repeats, falsely, that doctors, mothers decide to execute live babies after birth." and "at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Donald Trump repeated his absurd claim that pro-choice women and doctors are “executing” newborns." and "Trump’s comments Saturday — in which he repeated a claim that doctors are “executing” babies..." and "Trump repeated what has become one of the more frighteningly dishonest claims from the right lately regarding abortion..." The edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Leave out. You forgot to mention the deletion comment “Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident”. This is just a tidbit from a rally, trivia and OFFTOPIC for a BLP. The Twitter-blog also isn’t a good RS to be pulling from. The USAtoday is good, but again that one politician misportrays the opposing side positions isn’t surprising, and this one particular April example is not particularly noted. NOTEVERYTHING applies, keep this bloated article more for major and Biographical items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You forgot to mention the deletion comment “Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident”
Ahem. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)- User:Soibangla "
Ahem
" ? What ?? You made a declaration of its untruth the section title but then said nothing about it. Not said as being the deletion comment, gave no counter-evidence to show DUE other than your personal denial, nor some additional article discussing how it is a non-isolated important or as it being personal rather than political, you're just giving a "yes it is" denying it and reiterating a bit from the same cites here and there. But that isn't responding at ALL to the comment which seems reasonable to me nor is it giving additional (better) sources. I don't think every snip from Politifact belongs here or can fit, and this seem not BLP and the exact quote given seems just a line in a rally of April that is not particularly DUE. Doing a Google on wrapping the baby beautifully I see only 23,000 hits ... this is a trivia item, does not deserve inclusion let alone detailed quotes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Soibangla "
- I'd be interested to hear explanations of how Politico+Associated Press(via USA Today)+New York Times (and likely more) fails WEIGHT. Anyone? A stronger argument, while still debatable, would be that this fails consensus #37. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mandruss - I'll offer one explanation for UNDUE of 'not widely covered' at least re this citing of this particular rally speech to the detail of quoting - and not just 'litle' coverage, the line "they wrap the baby beautifully" and Trump seems zero coverage in my usual breadth checks at BBC and Fox. I also see "no result" hits at CBS, NBCnews, ABCnews.go.com, WSJ, CBC.ca, LA Times, etcetera. Now if I change it to "you wrap the baby beautifully" I see hits for Florida in May -- saying it is a misrepresentation of what Northam said. Neither the April line nor the May line has much WEIGHT, it seems just a ding of the moment about someone ELSE's gaff that Trump said a couple times rather than any long history or big deal, so - other than us - nobody seems continuing coverage of it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not aware that WEIGHT requires wide coverage across all RS, or continuing coverage. These are things invented by Wikipedia editors extra-policy (and often applied inconsistently depending on whether the editor likes or dislikes the content in question). The sources cited, even if that's all there is, do not constitute the "extremely small minority" required by WEIGHT for omission. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- DUE clearly says “in proportion to the prominence” ... and that undue weight can be given by amount of text and depth of detail. So a full anecdotal blip plus quote for something most sources chose to not cover at all, and even the ones that did seem just one backpage mention? UNDUE anecdote of an isolated political incident sounds about right. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not aware that WEIGHT requires wide coverage across all RS, or continuing coverage. These are things invented by Wikipedia editors extra-policy (and often applied inconsistently depending on whether the editor likes or dislikes the content in question). The sources cited, even if that's all there is, do not constitute the "extremely small minority" required by WEIGHT for omission. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mandruss - I'll offer one explanation for UNDUE of 'not widely covered' at least re this citing of this particular rally speech to the detail of quoting - and not just 'litle' coverage, the line "they wrap the baby beautifully" and Trump seems zero coverage in my usual breadth checks at BBC and Fox. I also see "no result" hits at CBS, NBCnews, ABCnews.go.com, WSJ, CBC.ca, LA Times, etcetera. Now if I change it to "you wrap the baby beautifully" I see hits for Florida in May -- saying it is a misrepresentation of what Northam said. Neither the April line nor the May line has much WEIGHT, it seems just a ding of the moment about someone ELSE's gaff that Trump said a couple times rather than any long history or big deal, so - other than us - nobody seems continuing coverage of it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely belongs in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, but unless this specific thing becomes biographically significant, it's hard to make a case for it to be in this main article. Trump tells so many shocking lies, it's rare that any single lie is notable enough for inclusion now, even one as outrageous as this one (which doubtless would've ended the presidency of any of his predecessors). A sad indictment on how bad things have become. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Definitely belongs. It's part of his use of anti-abortionists as a core voting block. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Move to other article. This is a biography, not a catalogue of lies by Trump. Just because it exits doesn't mean it belongs here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- It was already put in another article about 5 minutes before being added here [3].--MONGO (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh that again. Seems a persistent behaviour to copy-paste-paste-paste such. So we’re posting every anecdote on even teeny items and doing it repeatedly. *sigh*. Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- It was already put in another article about 5 minutes before being added here [3].--MONGO (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep it in. It is a massive issue. Currently there's just one sentence from 2016 in the article. zzz (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- It belongs, per those above saying keep. Probably with a trim. starship.paint (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Trump's personal position on abortion is already described in the article; there is no indication that it has changed since 2016, and he took no action as president to change any of the relevant laws. The quote I removed was indeed an anecdotal reaction to a story-of-the-day when some politicians made a fuss about a state decision on some medical cases. That is very much UNDUE for Trump's BLP, especially in light of consensus #37. This is not the "encyclopedia of everything Trump ever said at a rally or on Twitter". — JFG talk 21:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)That is very much UNDUE for Trump's BLP, especially in light of consensus #37. This is not the "encyclopedia of everything Trump ever said at a rally or on Twitter".
- @JFG: You said
Trump's personal position on abortion is already described in the article; there is no indication that it has changed since 2016, and he took no action as president to change any of the relevant laws.
That is incorrect. He is currently installing a rule that would deny Title X federal funds to any organization that even mentions abortion to patients, makes abortion referrals, or shares space with abortion providers.[4] As a result, Planned Parenthood is withdrawing from the Title X program, which provides affordable birth control; 1.5 million women use Planned Parenthood's family planning services.[5] This is an enormous triumph for abortion foes, who have been trying to defund Planned Parenthood for years. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC) That is very much UNDUE for Trump's BLP, especially in light of consensus #37. This is not the "encyclopedia of everything Trump ever said at a rally or on Twitter".
-- That is a circular, strawman argument. This is one of the small number of critical issues for Trump's political base and is widely and extensively reported in mainstream media. Accordingly, I shall reinstate unless substantive, policy-consistent objection is articulated here. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)- That's "effective involved closer" reasoning. At this article, at least, involved editors don't close discussions (actually or effectively) except when there is a large numerical margin. By my reckoning there is currently a numerical margin of 1 for inclusion. FWIW, I don't recommend trying that again. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss, I'm afraid I'm not following your thinking here. There's nothing to "close" here, formally or informally. This page is under the new Enforced BRD, not the consensus sanction you and JFG appear to be contemplating. But just as I don't see a substantive argument in JFG's objections above, I don't see any in yours. I'd like to hear some, so we could hash it out and have more confidence in the resolution. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- On the content issue, my few comments show me leaning include while giving a nod to #37. And that has substantive policy basis.As for process, I confess that I don't completely understand Enforced BRD. If it in fact permits an editor to edit in disputed content without consensus, because they have unilaterally judged opposing arguments from established editors as lacking merit, then I submit to that despite its appearing to suck in a big way, and only because I trust Awilley's judgment more than my own in the area of process. To my eyes that looks like disruption and an invitation to edit warring. I also have known JFG to show more than average respect for process, even when it doesn't serve his immediate ends (I can't say the same about you, regrettably), and the fact that he reverted you means that he also disagrees with your interpretation of Enforced BRD. All things considered, and subject to correction by Awilley, I currently think you're in the wrong on process. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- So, perhaps you and I (and others) +/- agree on the content. Maybe JFG will return and give a (more substantive) reason for opposing our view. Otherwise, I see no reason to keep it out. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- JFG is not the only opposer, and nobody is required to convince you or anybody else. While I disagree with his application of UNDUE (see User talk:Mandruss/Archive 7#Undue weight), I'm in a small minority on that. That means that the prevailing community view is that his argument has a policy basis, whether you agree with the argument or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- So, perhaps you and I (and others) +/- agree on the content. Maybe JFG will return and give a (more substantive) reason for opposing our view. Otherwise, I see no reason to keep it out. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- On the content issue, my few comments show me leaning include while giving a nod to #37. And that has substantive policy basis.As for process, I confess that I don't completely understand Enforced BRD. If it in fact permits an editor to edit in disputed content without consensus, because they have unilaterally judged opposing arguments from established editors as lacking merit, then I submit to that despite its appearing to suck in a big way, and only because I trust Awilley's judgment more than my own in the area of process. To my eyes that looks like disruption and an invitation to edit warring. I also have known JFG to show more than average respect for process, even when it doesn't serve his immediate ends (I can't say the same about you, regrettably), and the fact that he reverted you means that he also disagrees with your interpretation of Enforced BRD. All things considered, and subject to correction by Awilley, I currently think you're in the wrong on process. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss, I'm afraid I'm not following your thinking here. There's nothing to "close" here, formally or informally. This page is under the new Enforced BRD, not the consensus sanction you and JFG appear to be contemplating. But just as I don't see a substantive argument in JFG's objections above, I don't see any in yours. I'd like to hear some, so we could hash it out and have more confidence in the resolution. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's "effective involved closer" reasoning. At this article, at least, involved editors don't close discussions (actually or effectively) except when there is a large numerical margin. By my reckoning there is currently a numerical margin of 1 for inclusion. FWIW, I don't recommend trying that again. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG: You said
- I agree with you that in that instance, UNDUE was not correctly applied. Hence my remark that it was a circular straw-man argument. In fact I think that the Awilley BRD sanction was intended to stop a minority from blocking improvement through compromise merely by saying "no consensus for your edit". We do seem to have consensus for inclusion, and there have been thougthful arguments for streamlining, but none for removal IMO. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I find the stated reversion rationale
"Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident"
thoroughly specious, and we might not be having this conversation at all had that specious rationale not been invoked. soibangla (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm moving here my comments, and Muboshu's, from a section I mistakenly started below - not realizing that this discussion was about the same subject. I have also given this discussion a more informative heading. At issue is a paragraph devoted to Trump’s claim that mothers and doctors “execute” babies after birth. My own opinion: it’s frequent enough and significant enough to include, but it should be a single sentence in the existing “abortion” paragraph, not the full-length quotes of the proposed paragraph. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- This can be more fleshed out on Political positions of Donald Trump. It's not biographical of Trump, aside from confirming he's a liar who will say anything to inflame tensions if he thinks its to his benefit. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I see no reason for its incorporation into this BLP. Elsewhere perhaps.--MONGO (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- So now we have a specious justification for reversion and "I don't like it." Gotta wonder if the real reason is "OMG, this is the most horrific thing he has ever said, we can't let anyone see it." soibangla (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Its related to his presidency so I believe it belongs in that subarticle.--MONGO (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believe it should be included. It is quite a stunning statement. Gandydancer (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Its related to his presidency so I believe it belongs in that subarticle.--MONGO (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- So now we have a specious justification for reversion and "I don't like it." Gotta wonder if the real reason is "OMG, this is the most horrific thing he has ever said, we can't let anyone see it." soibangla (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Well sourced and also one of his anti-abortion rally calls for his position on abortion. Has wide coverage and been used more than once. ContentEditman (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- No - Not in this article, at least. I agree with MONGO. This would be appropriate for Political positions of Donald Trump, but it is not biographical as it relates to Trump, so it should not be in the main article. As noted above, this article is not a compendium of everything he ever said or every political position he's ever taken. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and add to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump: neither a "tidbit", nor "trivia", this is a significant statement, and is as integral to general knowledge as any other false claim by a POTUS. Lindenfall (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This statement is not UNDUE and is covered by multiple reliable sources and is reflection of Trump's character, hence it is appropriate for this article. Adding this to "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" is also acceptable. Additionally, I think the argument that implies, or openly states, this is merely a passing anecdotal statement very inaccurate. I think this statement by itself is notable per independent sourcing in reliable sources. I also agree with the additions by soibangla because that was also actually said and covered in sources. In any case, the removed content should be restored. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
By weight in sources, Special Counsel investigation should be in lead
By virtue of its weight in the reliable source record, the Special Counsel investigation and subsequent non-impeachment, and the associated controversy, scandal, et al., should be in the lead section as part of this man's life. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The investigation has been one of the most discussed events in his presidency so far, and I don't see it going away any time soon. Mgasparin (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too early to know lasting impact. What we "see" is irrelevant crystal-balling. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, the investigation is extremely prominent. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC).
- Lean Oppose (for now) - While the investigation is tremendously prominent and has oodles of WP:WEIGHT, can we really say it has had a significant impact on Trump's life? We need sources that specifically say that the investigation has directly impacted his life and/or his presidency. There are definitely articles that talk about how the investigation has prevented Trump from fully executing his agenda, and they would be a good place to start, but I can't support just plopping the fact of the investigation into the lead until those conditions are met. Much will depend on whether or not Trump is impeached, because the investigation will be a prominent component of that, but unless and until that happens, we're just feeding the Speculatron™. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Mostly... saying what? I’m inclined against buying into something sight unseen, just by the sales description. Perhaps the proposal means: “There was an investigation seeking ‘collusion’ of his campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that he denounced as a politically motivated Witch-hunt. It found no conspiracy but considered aspects of his opposition as potentially Obstruction of justice. “. Also - that it had no collusion or impeachment or other impact on his life and isn’t something he did inclines me to think it just shouldn’t get much coverage in his BLP, that instead the amount of content on this should be reduced and it be a short body mention that points to the article(s) about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, not prominent at all. But along the lines of Scjessey and Markbassett if something happens with it then by all means. PackMecEng (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Possibly support some brief inclusion of the investigation. Oppose mention of "subsequent non-impeachment, and the associated controversy, scandal, et al.". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Scjessey. If, for example, Trump was impeached due to the special counsel investigation then it would make sense to put it in the lede. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - This was in the news literally every day for two years-plus and was all over other media from youtube to Saturday Night Live. Anyway the mention here would be brief due to the several other related articles that can be linked for detailed information on the investigation. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The investigation owes its oodles to Trump's existence and association with it, but Trump and his image are virtually the same in its wake as they were in its upsurge. Not a mutual boost. It's like how Bigfoot or Elizabeth II belong upfront in articles about TV shows, books and "experts" revolving around them, but these coattailers/ripples/satellites appear tucked deeper down in the main subjects' bodies. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, August 29, 2019 (UTC)
- Support - certainly, the case for inclusion is weakened since he wasn't indicted (yet, keeping in mind he wasn't exonerated on obstruction of justice). But re-reading the lede, especially the last paragraph, I conclude that this investigation probably trumps several of those items in the last lede paragraph and is certainly a defining feature of his presidency and by weight in sources. starship.paint (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind, the report didn't exonerate anybody it studied and was never supposed to. Weighs the same for everyone, that absence of fact. The last paragraph is about stuff he did do, so not fair to compare. Experts feeling he might be obstructive or collusive should be weighed against experts feeling he might be surprising, lying or racist. Maybe fits in that paragraph. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, August 30, 2019 (UTC)
- Support but only brief coverage of the investigation. There's not much room for more in the lead. The investigation is now part of Trump's legacy. Also, coverage of non-impeachment and associated controversy (drama) should be no more than a short sentence. Besides, all the stuff in the lead is kind of old news - we do need to be current (imho). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support brief coverage (about two lines) of the investigation and its outcome. — JFG talk 07:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Move some of Investigation to Presidency ?
The discussion re the Special Counsel Investigation above makes it seem like there may be too much about it here for his BLP. (It wasn’t a life choice of his, has not had life-altering impact, and did not go on for an extensive percentage of his lifespan.). Yet there are 5 subsubsections involving this and 10 Main article or Further information links. So I will ask for thoughts re shrinking or moving some of it to improve the BLP and maybe elsewhere.
I am not BOLDly doing either because (a) This article is so controversial someone would revert no matter how good an edit it was and we’d just wind up here anyway; (b) What’s here seems MUCH more worked on and better done than the long droning on at Presidency of Donald Trump.
So... thought? Proposals for edits ?
- Please provide a signature. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
- Condense the Barr section of Special Investigation - It seems four paras added stepwise as events occurred (“On March 22”, “On March 24”, etcetera.) all about Barr detail with none of them being Trump actions or effects, and now that we’re after it would be time to summarize. I propose keep the line of report coming out on March 22, but then condense the longer paras of March 24 Barr letter and report release to a single line, and think keep the last para re Senate testimony of most recent status. This would drop out analyst opinions and Trump comments that now seem outdated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Collect the associates and reduce Manafort - Just a tweak, but the second of two paras in Russian interference isn’t about Russian interference with the election, it’s about Trump associates and their contacts to Russians other than the interference. So I suggest move it down a screen to the associates section, and while doing that also reduce Manafort coverage from being the bulk in four of the five paras. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Racial views has bias
The section mentions his speech following the Charlottesville episode but does not mention the fact that he literally denounced white supremacy in the same sentence as saying there were good people on both sides. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bgrus22, literally nobody heard him denounce white supremacy, but they heard the "many good people on both sides" line. The response from the white supremacists themselves (like David Duke) and the weight given in WP:RS to the coverage of Trump's handling of Charlottesville is what makes our handling of this appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- That would be because the msm is lying about what he said and continue to push that lie, if anyone actually watches the video they would see that he specifically said that he wasn't talking about white supremacists and neo nazis when he said good people. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: Here is the first comment of good people, and in that same speech (time stamp of 2 min or so) he denounces the white supremacists. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bgrus22, I've seen it, I know. Nobody believes his denunciation of white supremacy, as noted in reliable sources, and we go with what reliable sources say. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: Then why not state it as such? Explain what the president said and that people do not believe him? Plus in the case of David Duke the president has condemned him. I am fine with saying that these condemnations are seen as disengenious but they should be included or else we are relating a story that the president is being an unabashed racist (which given the frequent, albeit possibly insincere, denouncements would say he atleast would prefer a dog whistle to an air horn if he is a racist). Bgrus22 (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bgrus22, I've seen it, I know. Nobody believes his denunciation of white supremacy, as noted in reliable sources, and we go with what reliable sources say. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The Section also includes the phrase "However, many of his supporters say that his racist speech" if we want to be neutral then it shouldnt outright say racist speech, that is an allegation of speech and to be honest there are only allegations throughout this section with little actual counter points, meaning this section is largely narrative driven. Where is his condemnation of hate groups? This section needs an update or to be scrapped. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bgrus22, I agree that sentence should be rewritten, but just the one sentence, not the whole section. Do you have a proposed reword for that sentence? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the existing language is a carefully worked out consensus after extensive and exhaustive discussion over multiple threads and RfCs. While it is true consensus can change, it is going to take a significant effort to achieve any kind of change in this instance. It's worth going back and looking at the talk page archive to see how we got to where we are now before proceeding with any sort of attempt to change the existing consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- The word racist comes from the citation from the Nation. After a quick look through the site, a left leaning perspective, which is fine for an RS to have if the context allows it, is pretty obvious (even their wiki page has them marked out). Given the subject of the sentence, which is how his supporters address his speech, I feel this is a pretty dicey source to use...let alone directly quote to say that people are defending racist speech. The page as it is written now is claims that supporters are defending admittedly racist comments, but if we make a small change it could simply say the supporters defend comments that they do not perceive as racist but others do or that they are just defending comments in general. By calling the wording explicitly racist, in the context of people who are defending the comments you are advocating for the page to say that the Trump supporters are supporting racist speech instead of speech that some people are perceiving as racist. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's like you didn't even read what I just wrote. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: how about I quote you from an archive on this talk page?
- ""About half of the American population assert that Trump is not racist." What does that have to do with anything? Countless reliable sources confirm that Trump is a racist who makes racist comments and performs racist acts, and the fact that "half of the America population" assert otherwise reflects poorly on them and their lack of understanding. The fact is that "Racial views" doesn't make any sense at all, so I think we need to agree that it needs to change. I'm just not yet sure what it needs to be changed to. "Racism and xenophobia" is a generic term that seems to suit, since the section essentially documents Trump's racist and xenophobic acts. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)"
- Sounds like you have a pretty strong point of view on this... Regardless like the quote you used here purports people who are defending Trump largely are not defending what they see as racist, meaning the wiki page should be updated to reflect that. Also thank you for recommending to look through this, its an eye opener. Bgrus22 (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Everyone has a strong point of view on this, which is hardly a surprise given the subject matter. The fact remains, however, that the current language has come from a carefully worked out consensus preceded by a lot of discussion, so trying to get a change so early after the last one is likely a non starter. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: how about I quote you from an archive on this talk page?
- It's like you didn't even read what I just wrote. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Bgrus22 I will make the one specific change mentioned, at “his supporters say that his racist speech” to remove ‘racist’, as not appropriate by the cite TheNation and attribution needs of WP:LABEL... and see if it sticks. (Though that para seems to be loosely generalizing and neither an event nor BLP, so I think it alternatively it might be cut.). If you want more change, I think you’ll have to make similarly specific edit proposals. I don’t see any recent consensus on language here other than to use “characterized as” instead of declaring in wikivoice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Markbassett: Thank you, and I like the new wording! Bgrus22 (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Art of the Deal authorship in lead
The lead currently states: He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal.
I propose this be changed to the following: He released several ghostwritten books, including The Art of the Deal.
There was a previous discussion on this topic here that got very heated/convoluted, which I'd ideally like to avoid repeating, but the basic case for the change is this: reporting by The New Yorker (the gold standard of a reliable source) establishes that Trump did not write any of it, and additional sources establish the same for his other books. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Going into a little further detail regarding The Art of the Deal, the New Yorker reporting cites the publisher and ghostwriter, who both maintain Trump was not involved in the writing process, plus mixed statements by Trump himself (which I'd argue should be given little weight given his record). There was some discussion about the semantics of "co-author" versus "ghostwriter", since Tony Schwartz was officially listed as a co-author of the book. The salient point for me is that both the WP article on ghostwriting and most dictionaries state that the term encompasses writing where the true author is given some acknowledgement but not full credit, and it is preferable to "co-author" because it more clearly communicates to readers the basic fact of Trump's non-involvement. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Don’t be silly — User:Sdkb Author is given by the book itself, and by the copyright. All else is irrelevant, but I have to add that for author (creator) it was Trump’s project, title, material, and self-aggrandizing, and that Schwartz was hired — and suggest you look at what the articles say about Author versus Ghostwriter. The collaborator, researcher, proofreader, copyeditor, whatever normally gets some mention as a courtesy. That Schwartz got cover credit is more than seems usual. There is no obligation to even name the hired worker(s) at all - though that might cause a stir, see the “ThankYouGate” of Hillary Clinton It Takes a Village Ghostwriter controversy. If you find any contemporary claim disputing Trump has a claim to Author then fine - but if all you have is post-2015, I would suggest that has to be viewed with suspicion of it being politically tainted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Fixed it. Proposal would be excessive and denial is primary, OR, and inconsistent with longstanding consensus at the books's WP article. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support SPECIFICO's edit - "publish" is the right way to phrase this without getting caught up in the brambles. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with "published", but "co-authored" is also fine. Subsequent sections of the article deal with the specific circumstances of Trump's role in these books, and both "published" and "co-authored" are factually correct. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nowhere have I seen Wikipedia state as fact that Trump co-authored this book. So, no it is not fine, right? SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd agree that "co-authored" is factually inaccurate, but if I'm being particularly pedantic you could argue "published" isn't accurate either. Trump isn't a publisher, is he? A better way of putting it would be this:
He has had several books published, including The Art of the Deal.
- By saying he's had them published, we get around the fact he is not a publisher. Nor does it falsely claim he co-authored/wrote any of these books. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Markbassett's reasoning above, which is that co-authorship is determined by the book itself and the copyright. It is not necessarily depending on how active, if at all, that co-author was. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's sort of academic. Do we have sources that say Trump wrote the book? No. Do we have sources saying Trump co-authored the book? No. Do we have sources that say Schwartz wrote the book? Yes. But saying it was Schwartz's book would be silly, hence the use of the word "published" to remove all need for inaccuracy or awkwardness. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's actually quite a lot of reliable sources that describe Schwartz as Trump's co-author. [[6]] But it's all beside the point as I think the consensus is moving toward "published", which is fine by me. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 20:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- When I drafted out my proposal for this section, I actually initially used "published" rather than "released", but I changed it due to the same thought Scjessey had. I think "released" gets around the potential confusion of "published" and sounds less awkward than "had published". I still oppose "co-authored" — regardless of how authorship is technically established, the typical reader will interpret it to mean Trump was actively involved in writing the book, and will thus be misled.
- Regarding "ghostwritten", I understand the desire to not get caught up in the controversial brambles, but I don't think our desire to avoid controversy should be reason to allow Trump to bluster his way into receiving undue credit. I reiterate that his non-involvement in the writing of the books attributed to him is an essential fact to communicate to readers, and if "ghostwritten" accurately describes what took place (as I argued above), we should use it, not seek less descriptive language that blurs the issue to avoid ruffling feathers. Sdkb (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think our desire to avoid controversy should be reason to allow Trump to bluster his way into receiving undue credit.
I think that if we're looking to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS perpetrated by Donald Trump, there are probably more fruitful avenues. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 12:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Don't be silly about published either - again, matter of record and it's right in the book - Ballantine Books (of Random house ?) is the publisher, the ones who paid both authors Trump and Schwartz royalty money. Look, we have legal copyright, the book itself, plenty of RS, and routine precedents for Ghostwriters. Against that is a disputed verbals that are not going anywhere, and some OR trying to reinvent the whole terminology just for this one person. Or are we proposing to take away all of Clintons books and half of Obamas and Bush and so on ? I doubt we can even identify all the ghostwriters. Give it up -- facts are the book is officially by Donald J. Trump with Tony Schwartz. Copyright held by Trump. Published by Ballantine books. Making change back to that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Great! Except consensus is going a different way. It doesn't matter that Trump holds the copyright, he still didn't write it. Scooter Braun holds the copyright to Taylor Swift's back catalog and he obviously didn't write that either. Moreover, how books are credited in other articles has no bearing on how they are credited in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Markbassett:Please see my comment above in which your arguments are refuted. You're repeating those arguments, based on a primary source and your own OR. As noted, your "consensus" justification for reinserting the prior text, text that nobody else has said they prefer, is incorrect. Moreover, this article is no longer on "consensus required", and the new 24-hour BRD is designed to prevent a single editor from blocking constructive improvement by claiming "no consensus" when the only disagreement comes from one editor or a small minority. Also WP:WHATABOUTISM. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that last bit doesn't hold water. Particularly in the AP2 area, an editor who repeatedly claimed
"no consensus" when the only disagreement comes from one editor or a small minority
would be a fairly straightforward topic ban. That's classic disruption, and we don't need creative new sanctions to deal with it. I'm fairly certain that is not whatthe new 24-hour BRD is designed to
do. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC) - As I read it, there is no clear consensus here. That might be improved by a survey; and we've RfCed less significant things than this. In my opinion, Markbassett is not clearly out of line to assert "no consensus" (yet) in this case. I don't think he's saying we should stop trying for a consensus; if he is, I would disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that last bit doesn't hold water. Particularly in the AP2 area, an editor who repeatedly claimed
- There's actually quite a lot of reliable sources that describe Schwartz as Trump's co-author. [[6]] But it's all beside the point as I think the consensus is moving toward "published", which is fine by me. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 20:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's sort of academic. Do we have sources that say Trump wrote the book? No. Do we have sources saying Trump co-authored the book? No. Do we have sources that say Schwartz wrote the book? Yes. But saying it was Schwartz's book would be silly, hence the use of the word "published" to remove all need for inaccuracy or awkwardness. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Markbassett's reasoning above, which is that co-authorship is determined by the book itself and the copyright. It is not necessarily depending on how active, if at all, that co-author was. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nowhere have I seen Wikipedia state as fact that Trump co-authored this book. So, no it is not fine, right? SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with "published", or "had published". Trump's misuse of the English language has grown legendary, after all; he writes like he talks. Lindenfall (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse Scjessey's proposal as the most accurate. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Published seems most accurate.--MONGO (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support "He published several books, including The Art of the Deal." — JFG talk 07:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
"Mental health of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mental health of Donald Trump. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)