The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 239: | Line 239: | ||
::{{u|SPECIFICO}}, why are you recommending we read a book by John Bolton? See [https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/gatestone-institute-john-bolton-chairs-an-actual-fake-news-publisher-infamous-for-spreading-anti-muslim-hate/ "JOHN BOLTON CHAIRS AN ACTUAL “FAKE NEWS” PUBLISHER INFAMOUS FOR SPREADING ANTI-MUSLIM HATE"]. (''The Intercept'', March 23 2018) I found that article on a page in the SPLC's Hatewatch, listing articles about Bolton.[https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/26/hatewatch-headlines-3262018] [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC) |
::{{u|SPECIFICO}}, why are you recommending we read a book by John Bolton? See [https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/gatestone-institute-john-bolton-chairs-an-actual-fake-news-publisher-infamous-for-spreading-anti-muslim-hate/ "JOHN BOLTON CHAIRS AN ACTUAL “FAKE NEWS” PUBLISHER INFAMOUS FOR SPREADING ANTI-MUSLIM HATE"]. (''The Intercept'', March 23 2018) I found that article on a page in the SPLC's Hatewatch, listing articles about Bolton.[https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/26/hatewatch-headlines-3262018] [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::[[wp:DENY]]👩⚖️[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 13:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
Revision as of 13:33, 30 June 2022
Archives (Index): | |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 | |
Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
Current consensus
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#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 replies 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)
18. The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "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. 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. 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 stating that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)
46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2020)
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. There is consensus towards using 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)
Opinion pieces are not reliable for straightforward facts
Per WP:RSOPINION, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." I edited this article to bring it in line with this guideline (removing two citations to opinion pieces and using inline attribution for another), but was reverted by User:SPECIFICO, who also reintroduced a misquotation. I would appreciate input from others about this issue. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to correct the misquote. You're also free to find other sources you think are more solid for the facts. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well done. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just saw article by New York Post stating Larry Sanger states Wikipedia can not be counted on to report in a non-partial manner. Just thought you would like to know. I , personally , and with respect for you, in that you are trying to do good, but unfortunately, this type of bias becomes very bad for any organization and will eventually lead to it's demize, in my humble opinion. I think an effort should be made to report as positive an image as possible and to avoid trying to lead anyone to an opinion. People will form opinions themselves. Wikipedia is not here to be a political dialogue. Please try to understand my point of view. Your hatred comes through in your article about Trump. It is almost like being a supremecist. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GordonGlottal: The comment is about improvement to the article, so it's not a NOTAFORUM situation. At this article, NOTAFORUM is about general talk about politics not directly connected to suggested article improvement. The problem here is that the comment is too general, and the IP user (and all others making similar comments) should be referred to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have read both NOTAFORUM and Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Forgive me, and knowing that I might not be a s wise, it appears to me, that you don't really get the point. I don't wish to argue the merits of Donald Trump, but you must admit that to a large segment of our society, he was a really outstanding President. For another segment of our society, he was hated and thus ridiculed. So in fact, he would be hard to describe, but to take a totally left wing approach to the whole article does not do justice to Wikipedia, which, I might add, I truly love. Sorry for the rehash. I think the article should be rewritten to reflect the respect to the office of The President of the United States of America. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
to a large segment of our society, he was a really outstanding President
, a lot of people liked Benito Mussolini, too. That doesn't mean Benito Mussolini gets to have a pro-fascist bent. ValarianB (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have read both NOTAFORUM and Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Forgive me, and knowing that I might not be a s wise, it appears to me, that you don't really get the point. I don't wish to argue the merits of Donald Trump, but you must admit that to a large segment of our society, he was a really outstanding President. For another segment of our society, he was hated and thus ridiculed. So in fact, he would be hard to describe, but to take a totally left wing approach to the whole article does not do justice to Wikipedia, which, I might add, I truly love. Sorry for the rehash. I think the article should be rewritten to reflect the respect to the office of The President of the United States of America. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GordonGlottal: The comment is about improvement to the article, so it's not a NOTAFORUM situation. At this article, NOTAFORUM is about general talk about politics not directly connected to suggested article improvement. The problem here is that the comment is too general, and the IP user (and all others making similar comments) should be referred to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just saw article by New York Post stating Larry Sanger states Wikipedia can not be counted on to report in a non-partial manner. Just thought you would like to know. I , personally , and with respect for you, in that you are trying to do good, but unfortunately, this type of bias becomes very bad for any organization and will eventually lead to it's demize, in my humble opinion. I think an effort should be made to report as positive an image as possible and to avoid trying to lead anyone to an opinion. People will form opinions themselves. Wikipedia is not here to be a political dialogue. Please try to understand my point of view. Your hatred comes through in your article about Trump. It is almost like being a supremecist. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well done. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Provide one item we say is a fact that is sourced to an op-ed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good job here guys, happy editing. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Condense foreign policy line in intro
The lead is very long, and "America First" only appears once in the body of the article (see MOS:LEADREL). Since we describe his foreign policy in detail already, and that's all the term refers to, I think we should merge that line with the following sentence:
In foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and initiated a trade war with China.
─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed and done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Also that kind of jargon is too likely to be misinterpreted or two prone to multiple diverse meanings for it to be informative in an encyclopedia. Sources I've seen just say that Trump liked the sound of "america first" which, like MAGA, is vague and likely to reinforce many voters' preconceived views. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seems ok. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Political legacies
WP:NOTFORUM. @SandRand97: actually, we won't "be here all day", because the WP:BURDEN is entirely on you to show that your proposed content comports with our Policies and Guidelines regarding Verification, Neutral Point of View, and article Lead sections. If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here. Nobody is obligated to respond to you. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How is this not neutral? As has been suggested: “Trump’s most notable political legacies are his two impeachments, his alleged provocation of the January 6th attack and being singlehandedly procedurally responsible for giving abortion law-making in the U.S. back to state legislatures. The latter due to all three of his conservative Supreme Court judge appointees voting to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022, which was unconstitutionally imposed at the federal level in January 1973.“ It includes two left-wing perspectives and two right-wing perspectives, and is factually accurate in its words content SandRand97 (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I think there is an argument that the three Trump-appointed justices’ opting to overturn Roe vs Wade deserves to belong in the lede (even if it occurred after his presidency, it is difficult to deny, if at all, that the Supreme Court verdict occurred because of Trump and his judicial appointments). JLo-Watson (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC) @SandRand97: you violated the 24-hour BRD cycle in effect on this page - see WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES above. You added an unsourced op-ed to the lead. The lead summarizes the body, and whatever you add to the body needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. I doubt very much that reliable secondary sources exist for any of your claims, from the alleged legacies to your opinion that the SC justices overturned the
Abortion rights are not in the federal Constitution. It’s a fact that the original imposition of Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional, not an opinion. I’m not going to argue about it because there’s nothing to argue about. You can’t argue with facts. Have a good day. SandRand97 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO then just take that part out. It’s not complicated. SandRand97 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Valjean: If amendments are consistent with the original constitution, then no. Again I don’t want to get into an argument about this because we’ll be here all day and I’m sure we all have better things to do. SandRand97 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
Unite The Right comments
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I changed that paragraph based on the more balanced perspective from the Unite the Right rally page itself, which calls it a white supremacist rally rather than a far-right rally and notes defenses of Trumps remarks. Per WP:RSP, RCP has no consensus on reliability, but is still to avoid. However, the USA Today source I added summarizes the defence of the remarks as "However, some people say they believe Trump also condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis as part of his "very fine people" statement." This should be included in the paragraph. In addition, the addition I made to the article saying "Trump also condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists in response to the rally." is backed up by Politico, which is reliable. I suggest changing the paragraph to the following: "Trump's comments on the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized by some as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.[1][2][3][4] Others interpreted his "fine people" remark as explicitly denouncing white supremacists and neo-Nazis.[5][6] Trump also condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists in response to the rally.[7]" As for the quote, it should be expanded because not mentioning what he said after the main comment would be quoting out of context when the CNN source provided shows the full quote. The last thing we want to engage in is quotemining. X-Editor (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- The point of having sub-articles on related topics is to keep the information there, and not bloat this giant article any more than it already is. Also Trump's "both sidesing" the affair does not belong here. Zaathras (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaathras: I agree that sub-articles exist for a reason, but my proposed change would only add slightly more content and is far more neutral. The current paragraph leaves out crucial context, such as not mentioning that Trump condemned white nationalists and neo-Nazis. You also didn't address my comment regarding the quotemine of Trump. X-Editor (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think X-Editor makes a good point. This article is to big but I think this is important enough to include both for the more balanced perspective. I also agree that this way is far more neutral. MaximusEditor (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaathras: I agree that sub-articles exist for a reason, but my proposed change would only add slightly more content and is far more neutral. The current paragraph leaves out crucial context, such as not mentioning that Trump condemned white nationalists and neo-Nazis. You also didn't address my comment regarding the quotemine of Trump. X-Editor (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- We’re not bound by the content of other WP articles. BTW, Unite the Right Rally goes on to say that "far-right groups participated," and then lists them by name.
- You added POV in the name of balance. You used a partisan commentator (Cortes—more on him below) as a source for part of the first sentence you added (WP:RS), and interpreted a primary source (a transcript of Trump’s comments) for the second sentence (WP:OR—Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself). Our current text says (I bolded the text changed or added in your version):
That’s neutral, short, and to the point. Your version:Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.
Trump's comments on the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized by some as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. Others characterized the interpretation of the latter comment as a hoax,[8] because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists.[9][10] Trump also condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists in response to the rally.[11]
- "Others", per your only source, is Wall Street trader, Trump campaign operative, and Fox commentator Steve Cortes commenting on RealClear Politics—are you seriously arguing that he is a reliable source? Well, here’s a comment published on The Bulwark (website), not really a left-leaning outlet, on Steve Cortes’s "Charlottesville hoax" conspiracy theory. He tried to repurpose the name of the conspiracy theory "Charottesville Hoax" (a claim that Heather Heyer’s murder was a hoax) to an alleged hoax perpetrated by media outlets falsely quoting/reporting on Trump’s comments. No, the media didn’t do either, and both Trump’s statements and the media reports have been fact checked over and over again.
because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists.
USA Today says that's partly false "because he did not say directly, 'There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally.' The two statements were separate, the second part coming later, after further questioning from reporters." In other words, journalists eventually managed to drag a denouncement out of Trump but that didn't prevent him from reverting to "fine people on both sides".[1] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)- @Space4Time3Continuum2x: You're actually right about the USA Today article not saying it is an interpretation. As for the FactCheck.org link, it does say that some people disagree with the interpretation, but links to an article titled "Pence joins in the effort to rewrite Trump's Charlottesville history" as evidence, so clearly whitewashing. However, Trump did still later condemn white supremacists and Neo-nazis in a later statement. So i would propose adding the sentence "However, Trump later stated that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists".[12]" after the initial paragraph that is already there for context and balance. You're also right about the RCP article represents a clear COI and it's disappointing that his interpretation was displayed uncritically in the UTR rally article for quite some time. X-Editor (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Space4Time3Continuum2x: However, you haven't addressed my concerns of this article quotemining Trump by not mentioning that he said "And some, I assume, are good people." after he said "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." You might say that was to give plausible deniability, but this interpretation doesn't matter if it hasn't been documented in reliable sources. X-Editor (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- It has been documented as such, as have many of his clarifications, jokes, and slips of the tongue. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I briefly wondered whether "quotemining" was referring to the Mexican rapists sentence but since that had nothing with the Unite the Right rally I didn't address it. I'm not strongly opposed to adding the sentence to the quote, I just don't see what it would add. The three bald statements (all Mexicans, no assuming) followed by a weak, "well, maybe some are not" — he's not walking anything back. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- It would add context, because if people only see the first part of the quote, they might interpret that as him saying that all of them are doing that, when the second part shows that is not the case. I actually agree with SPECIFICO below that it might be better to write a summary of how mainstream reporting interprets his provocations instead of just showing specific comments from him, but for now, the context should be added. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Space4Time on our current language. For the last line: While there's certainly room for expansion like adding his later comments in ideal circumstances, we have to be careful on this enormous page. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@X-Editor: a better approach might be to write a few sentences on the overwhelming mainstream reporting and analysis of Trump's use of various weak prevarications and deflections to chum up his base and right-wing media supporters. Then we would be giving an encyclopedic overview without having to go into the details of what he said or to omit all or part of what he said each and every time. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) @X-Editor:20:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- That actually sounds a lot better, but for now, the context should be added per my explanation above. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO:@GordonGlottal:@Space4Time3Continuum2x:@Zaathras:@MaximusEditor: Just so everyone is clear, my proposed change is now adding this sentence to the UTR rally paragraph: "However, Trump later stated that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists".[12]" and to add Trump saying "And some, I assume, are good people." next to the other part of the quote that says "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." to the article. X-Editor (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- This really adds nothing of value to the article. The former president has offered these mealy-mouthed half-retraction half-excusemaking at several junctures, from Charlottesville to J6. Zaathras (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Context is nothing of value? X-Editor (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Zaathras has put it in a nutshell. Dog bites man. Trump denies XYZ -- not only do mainstream sources take this deflection as nonsense, they don't even bother mentioning it in subsequent discussions of his statement. Yes, there are the contemporaneous accounts of all kinds of presidential pronouncements, but the media and tertiary sources did not take that seriously. Fog is not context that clarifies. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Context is nothing of value? X-Editor (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- The second one doesn't bother me, but nor do I really think it's necessary. For the first: fundamentally, the point of this section is to summarize the racial views of Donald Trump. At the top we say that he denies being a racist etc. Below we give various examples of incidents that have been taken to be a better reflection of his genuine views. The fact that he later reverted to his more PC, controlled statements or muddied the waters isn't really that relevant. The reader knows that he denies it and that claims otherwise are an attempt to read between the lines of his public persona. Anyone interested in more can look at the full page. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Zaathras, Spefico, and Gordon. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: You mentioned the idea of writing "a few sentences on the overwhelming mainstream reporting and analysis of Trump's use of various weak prevarications and deflections to chum up his base and right-wing media supporters ... without having to go into the details of what he said or to omit all or part of what he said each and every time." Do you have any suggestions on what that might look like and what sources we could use? That sounds much more encyclopedic than just cherrypicking several things he has said. X-Editor (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- You might look in some of the books that were published in the second half of his presidency -- by Phil Rucker, Woodward, Mary Pence, John Bolton, and others. There is also analysis in the top RS media such as NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, BBC. I would be very happy to see you tackle this and I think many editors would join you if you'd like to get the ball rolling on this project. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- You appear to have misunderstood this suggestion. I don't believe the suggestion is to add more sources on individual incidents like you did here. (I reverted the edit.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, why are you recommending we read a book by John Bolton? See "JOHN BOLTON CHAIRS AN ACTUAL “FAKE NEWS” PUBLISHER INFAMOUS FOR SPREADING ANTI-MUSLIM HATE". (The Intercept, March 23 2018) I found that article on a page in the SPLC's Hatewatch, listing articles about Bolton.[1] TFD (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Merica, Dan (August 26, 2017). "Trump: 'Both sides' to blame for Charlottesville". CNN. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
- ^ Johnson, Jenna; Wagner, John (August 12, 2017). "Trump condemns Charlottesville violence but doesn't single out white nationalists". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
- ^ Kessler, Glenn (May 8, 2020). "The 'very fine people' at Charlottesville: Who were they?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2021.
- ^ Holan, Angie Dobric (April 26, 2019). "In Context: Donald Trump's 'very fine people on both sides' remarks (transcript)". PolitiFact. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
- ^ Dunn, Adrienne (October 17, 2020). "Fact check: Meme on Trump 'very fine people' quote contains inaccuracies". USA Today. Retrieved 2020-10-20.
- ^ Farley, Robert (February 11, 2020). "Trump has condemned white supremacists". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
- ^ Politico Staff (August 15, 2017). "Full text: Trump's comments on white supremacists, 'alt-left' in Charlottesville". Politico.
I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists
- ^ Cortes, Steve (March 21, 2019). "Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved 2021-02-15.
- ^ Dunn, Adrienne (October 17, 2020). "Fact check: Meme on Trump 'very fine people' quote contains inaccuracies". USA Today. Retrieved 2020-10-20.
- ^ Farley, Robert (February 11, 2020). "Trump has condemned white supremacists". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
- ^ {{cite news |author=Politico Staff |date=August 15, 2017 |title=Full text: Trump's comments on white supremacists, 'alt-left' in Charlottesville |work=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662 |quote="I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists"
- ^ a b "Read the complete transcript of President Trump's remarks at Trump Tower on Charlottesville". Los Angeles Times. August 15, 2017. Retrieved December 28, 2021.
Article by Politico and best and worst Presidents
Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus, item 54, says it should be included. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
- 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.
Not sure this should be included as a fact. It may be a fact that they conducted a survey, but it is way to subject to political bias. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bringing this BLP to NPoV is a frustrating process, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Except we do not include it as a fact (unless the OP is saying that the poll did not come to that conclusion). 16:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Too Biased Against Trump
Repetitive, drive-by IPs asking nothing new. Zaathras (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
- 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 hate Trump as much as the next guy, but even I can see the bias against him in this article. If you are going to take the time to write an article about him, please do it without bias. 172.74.203.83 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- What are some suggestions you have that would make the article less biased? The content in this page is often debated, so we're open to suggestions. X-Editor (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)