This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Here is a start of working draft to address concerns that we should cover Trump's false statements in the body of the article. I propose that this would be inserted in the Presidential campaign, 2016 section before Primaries. There seem to be plenty of material to work with, so this could easily be expanded.
Material that would be moved from other sections is shown in orange. - Mr X 16:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Trump's campaign received significant media coverage beginning with his announcement that he was running for President. Many of the statements Trump has made during his presidential campaign have been controversial, and many are false.
[1] Fact checking organizations such as
PolitiFact and
FactCheck.org have noted that, based on the statements they have analyzed, Trump has made more false statements than his opponents.
[2]Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). Trump's made various false claims over several months that President Obama and Secretary Clinton fostered, and even founded ISIS.
[3]
[4]
[5] After insisting that he meant that Obama literally founded ISIS, Trump eventually capitulated and said he was being sarcastic.
[6] Similarly, Trump has made false statements associating Mexican immigrants with criminal activity,
[7]
[8] claiming that the U.S. is the "highest taxed nation in the world",
[9]
[10], and falsely stating that the U.S. unemployment rate "anywhere from 18 to 20 percent", and two months later saying "Our real unemployment rate is 42 percent".
[11]
[12]
According to The Washington Post, 65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity, far exceeding that of most politicians.
[7] Trump has been promoted as being a "straight-talker", and more authentic than typical politicians.
[13]
Florida A&M University Professor Michael LaBossiere commented that Trump "perfected the outrageous untruth as a campaign tool," adding, "He makes a clearly false or even absurdly false claim, which draws the attention of the media. He then rides that wave until it comes time to call up another one." According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
[14] In its 2016 mid -year report, PolitiFact found 60 percent of Trump's claims to be false.
[15]
[16]
References
|
---|
References
|
MrX, thanks for your work on this, but I think this is WP:UNDUE. We had to have a long discussion to even get the current two sentences into the article; I don't think there would ever be consensus for a whole section like this. I for one wouldn't support it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Much of the media attention on Trump's campaign has been focused on allegations that many statements made by Trump during the campaign are misleading or untrue. Various claims include that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are the founders of ISIS, that the majority of Mexican immigrants are violent criminals, that the US is the highest taxed nation on the world and that the unemployment rate is as high as 42%.
Trump has been promoted as being a "straight-talker", and more authentic than typical politicians. However, according to The Washington Post, 65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity, far exceeding that of most politicians. According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
( edit conflict)I'm not suggesting that he is a straight talker, but he is often claimed to be such by his supporters. It's not contentious that his supporters claim this, and it's very germane to the subject of this proposed section. It should be trivial to find a source. Also, feel free to edit away at my proposal above to change anything you guys want to. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Consider this proposed language: "65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity...." Suppose candidate X makes one false statement during a campaign, and it is the only statement of candidate X that is fact checked by a fact-checker. In contrast, candidate Y makes a hundred false statements during the campaign, and the fact-checker fact-checks 200 statements by candidate Y. So, the fact-checker says that 100% of fact-checked statements by candidate X are false, compared to only 50% for candidate Y. How are such statistics useful for Wikipedia? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant Please decide what your argument is. First, you were concerned about presenting raw percentages. I suggested that we also include the number of facts checked and the number determined to be false. Now your argument is "those numbers do not do justice to the issue at hand." The issue at hand is an independent source checked statements from both candidate and found that most of Trump's were false. That's a simple fact. There is no reason, based on their reputation, to assume that they cooked the figures. As far as The Washington Post is concerned, I think it's great that an independent news organization checks facts on behalf of their readers. Isn't that how free press in a free democracy is supposed to work?- Mr X 16:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I could accept this abridged version. One quibble: I don't like using the "founders of ISIS" example - because he semi-sorta retracted it, and because most people knew he didn't mean it literally - unless Reliable Sources consider it one of the most notable. There are many others to choose from, such as the "I saw New Jersey Muslims cheering 9/11" story which he repeated many times and never retracted. Or "I opposed going into Iraq" or "I am self funding my campaign, I don't take donations". I would also like to add to the final sentence as follows: "According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, so that PolitiFact gave its 2015 Lie of the Year award to "The campaign misstatements of Donald Trump". [6] -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I think politifact's main page on Trump is a better source if we have to cite a fact checker. It's got a larger number of statements checked than the WaPo source, and the proportional difference between Trump's total fact checked claims and Clinton's total fact checked claims (231 for Trump and 243 for Clinton) is smaller. Large sample sizes make for more accurate results, and smaller differences in sample sizes make the comparison better. Also, for anyone disputing that Trump is less honest, 70% of his checked statements were rated false in some way, compared to 27% for Clinton. 22% of Clinton's claims were rated entirely true, compared to 4% of Trumps. 18% of Trump's claims were rated "Pants on Fire" (which they define as "The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."), compared to 2% of Clinton's.
Regarding the "founders of ISIS" claim, I believe he later doubled-down on it and said he meant it literally, but I'm fine with replacing it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@ MrX, MjolnirPants, Buster7, and MelanieN: Thank you for trying to address other editors' concerns by repairing the proposed material. But there is no consensus that PolitiFact is a reputable source for ideologically contentious material about Trump's false statements. And you must respect that lack of consensus.
NOCON policy
Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take an action. For ideologically
contentious matters related to
living people, a lack of consensus results in its removal.
TALKDONTREVERT policy
Consensus can't be assumed simply because editors stop responding to discussions in which they have already participated. --
Dervorguilla (
talk)
06:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
If their rating system is sending false messages ... they're doing exactly what they were founded to stop: using language to spread false impressions.
PolitiFact.com ... is out with its 'Lie of the Year'... In the past ... PolitiFact vouched for [this] Lie... Exposing it conclusively as such would have required a degree of expertise few journalists have... Its past evaluations of the statement were ... merely opinion pieces... Selling opinion pieces by labeling them 'fact checks' is fundamentally dishonest.
@ Dervorguilla: I am an interested editor and I don't see the developement of the RfC the same way you do. True, DR F said "You're citing unreliable opinion sources about other sources by PolitiFact to say that PolitiFact isn't reliable in general, and saying that the cited PolitiFact and FactCheck.org sources are opinion sources... We're not getting anywhere here. I'm going to start an RFC." But when he initiated the RfC he asked
Should the lead section, which currently says: "His statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, ..." be changed to read (changes in bold): "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false,[1][2] ..."
and provided references from FactCheck and Politfact. To me the RfC was about the addition of "many" and "false" and this, and only this question, is what I (and I believe other editors) gave comment and support or oppose to. To me (and I believe others) the RfC was not about the References. The discussion drifted that way and the comments and ivotes became muddled to the point of losing clarity as to what was being judged and responded to; "many and false" or FactCheck and PolitiFact. You say above...He was clearly replying to this comment in particular.... I may have been clear to you, but that is in no way what was clear to me. To me the RfC drifted off target and any concensus it reached is tainted by lack of clarity as to what editors were Ivoting on. I see support for "many and false". You see responses to the side issue of References. To me, while the RfC discussion was lively and informative, it is not a reliable answer to the question; should we change to, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false"....? Buster Seven Talk 13:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Added clarification: I am one of those that accept that PolitiFact is a reliable source. Buster Seven Talk 20:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Dervorguilla, I have sometimes seen you claim that something "does not have consensus" when you are the sole dissenter. Please remember that WP:Consensus does not have to be unanimous. In this case, most people here seemed to accept that PolitiFact is a reliable source. It has won a Pulitzer Prize), and it is produced by the Miami Herald which is a reliable source. I believe we did have consensus on that point, even if you argued against it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not think RSN is the appropriate route when a single editor (out of what, 20?) claims that PolitiFact--PolitFact!--isn't reliable. The appropriate avenue when there is a good faith dispute as to whether there's consensus is WP:ANRFC. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?. - Mr X 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Should the lead say "have been controversial or hyperbolic" instead of "have been controversial"? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
“ | Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or hyperbolic, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots from both sides of the political spectrum. | ” |
What the body of this article says about this subject, as of August 31, 2016
| |||
---|---|---|---|
References
|
Instead of inserting "or hyperbolic", we could hypothetically insert "or false" or "or dishonest", et cetera. I think "hyperbolic" is much better because the words "false" and "dishonest" lack nuance, because hyperbole is a major (if not the major) form of Trump's falsities, because a bare assertion of "falseness" or "dishonesty" sounds too much like a partisan attack, and because the discretionary sanctions applicable to this BLP require not merely consensus but "firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This has been a longstanding sentence in the lede:
Recently that sentence was modified to read:
I split it into two sentences because I thought the two halves of the sentence were not really related to each other:
Just now someone recombined them, in a way that seems to me to imply a causal connection between "controversial statements" and "protests and riots" that I don't think is justified:
I would like to see this combined version of the sentence reverted, and any one of the three previous versions restored. I don't know that we need to have a huge discussion/consensus over the matter, but I would not be comfortable reverting it myself, per Discretionary Sanctions. Thoughts, anyone? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
From memory, it seems that the infobox used to be titled "Donald J. Trump", a frequently-used name including by Trump's own web site. Any clue why this is now only "Donald Trump"? Can we restore the middle initial without triggering a fight? — JFG talk 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Having been reverted by Awilley, I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page. I'm wondering why I was reverted. Graham ( talk) 02:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Our article makes no mention that the USFL franchise was originally owned by Donald Trump. I first remember becoming aware of Trump when the team signed Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker, who was an underclassmen. Not sure but I think he (Walker) may have been the first underclassman to sign with a professional team and forego his college career. Shouldn't that be mentioned? 22:21, 2 September 2016 User:Buster7
How come the infobox has a footnotes section without footnotes and a {{
listen}} box which appears to be invisible? I would just remove it, but there's a hidden note that says <!-- Unnecessary, BUT DO ''not'' REMOVE -->
.
Graham (
talk)
23:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Unnecessary, BUT DO ''not'' REMOVE -->
" but forget to remove the "DO not REMOVE
" label itself. I also mistakenly add the "footnotes" parameter based on a misreading of
Template:Infobox person, which clearly says, "Footnotes: Notes about any of the infobox data", not "Footnotes: Footnotes in any of the infobox data". My error. --
Dervorguilla (
talk)
00:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)There has been a back and forth about whether to include that a floor in the building was sold to Saudia Arabia for 4.5 million or whatever. Thoughts-- Malerooster ( talk) 01:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
If its relevance stems primarily from the Clinton connection, then it would be more appropriate in the article about his 2016 campaign, assuming that reliable sources have linked these things together. But mentioning it here without explaining relevance would just leave readers wondering why we're paying so much attention to one transaction like this. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
At this point is it being reported only by the New York Daily News, a tabloid, and a blog at The Hill. Unless and until it becomes a generally reported and prominent issue, it should not be in this article OR the campaign article IMO. Also, since it has been added to the article once and removed, it is identified as contentious material, and it MUST NOT be restored to the article without consensus, per Discretionary Sanctions. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The pics of Trump's two ex wives in " Family" section, is weirdly not right (not good). (I'm sure policy-wise it is ... UNDUE. But I suspect a greater problem, one of subtle smear against Trump, by including all wives, current & ex, as though "equal", like a tribe, like a harem. The reason I suspect this is because many Clinton campaign surrogates have propagated the idea that two divorces somehow makes Trump "immoral" and therefore unqualified/unfit to be president on that basis. That's what the inclusion of the series of pics connotes in this article.) Blue-links to the ex wives' names are what's appropriate. I doubt there's any equivalent BLP parading pics of ex wives equal to the subject's wife in "Family" section or any other BLP section. Can we please delete these excess/unnecessary/inappropriate pics? IHTS ( talk) 07:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
For that matter, how do people feel about the row of mug shots of his three adult children? I haven't seen that in other articles, either. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
We mention The Donald which is clearly the most notable but what about others? This year for example due to the elections the nickname "Daddy" or " Daddy Donald" has popped up:
How much coverage in popular media would warrant a mention? Ranze ( talk) 09:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's look past those two at the earliest three then. I would argue that there is a lack of evidence that this is Milo's idea, as I've yet to find a use of it by Milo which predates Parker's use of it in January. So far the earliest use I've found from MY is February 19 so that still puts Kathleen a month ahead of him. If anyone could identify an earlier use then we could explore that possibility, but even then, a lot of usage has happened outside of Breitbart, as you can see below. I'll cite the above 3 non-BB more thoroughly so their source is clear.
WASHINGTON — So you say you want a daddy for your president? .. Big Daddy's the boss
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)The Trump Children comprise a far smaller subset within all of these groups. They're looking for a father figure
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 11 September 2016 suggested (
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)all the Donald Trump supporters in the audience reply: "Daddy's going to win! Daddy's going to win! Hooray!" It's not hard to find Trump supporters who describe their preferred candidate in such directly paternal terms.
In the process of citing these I also found another source for "The King" being a nickname:
"You can always tell when the king is here," Mr. Trump's longtime butler here, Anthony Senecal, said of the master of the house and Republican presidential candidate. The king was returning that day to his Versailles
The initial results were also just from searching "Daddy Donald". It did not initially occur to me to try th inverse " Daddy Trump", which as you can see produces additional results including Big Daddy Trump also having recurrent use:
All will be well with Rich, Successful Daddy Trump in the White House.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)As surprising as Coulter's disappointment in Trump's behavior (considering her otherwise steadfast commitment to the candidate), it was nowhere near as horrifying as what Yiannopoulos said to prompt it. When Coulter said that she was "a little testy with our man right now," the Breitbart editor joked, "Daddy's annoyed you?" DADDY.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Next, I want to see Big Daddy Trump come out to play.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)But that's how paternalism works—Daddy Trump gets to decide who gets rewarded and who gets punished.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)the best part of this is Rush's voice dropping into a sort of audible leer when he talks about the ecstasy Clinton-haters will feel when Daddy Trump gives 'em what they want
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Just how far will the GOP's Big Daddy go
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)None of them are divorced, public philanderers, substance abusers, or so lacking in employable skills that they can't find a job with Daddy
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I don't know if these sites are or aren't reliable sources for actual election facts, but all (except perhaps PoliticusUSA which doesn't have an article, but which I have included because Jones' is the earliest place I've found the 'Daddy' phrase applied to him so far) are notable media aggregates which demonstrate widespread use of this "Daddy" nickname. It seems worth considering whether to list them after "The Donald" as secondary/tertiary nicknames of more recent birth. Some of these reference MY but a lot of others don't, it seems to have taken on a life of its own outside quoting him.
By the way @ NeilN: was special:diff/738676929 in relation to this or something else? I get the impression I'm being threatened for bringing this up and would like to understand why. Ranze ( talk) 01:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This recent edit replaced the sentence "In December 1969 Trump received a high number in the draft lottery, which would also have exempted him from service" with "Richard Flahavan, a longtime agent of the Selective Service System, stated Trump's deferment had made his draft number unimportant". I object to this change, for several reasons. First, it's not good to start talking about a draft number without first saying when and how he got the draft number; second, Flahavan is already discussed in a footnote (that includes a quote from the NYT); third, the NYT discussed Flahavan without repeating his POV in the NYT's voice; fourth, a separate footnote quotes ABC as having a slightly different POV than Flahavan ("Nor do the documents categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft"); fifth, the language deleted from this BLP did not contradict either Flahavan or ABC News; sixth, the sentence deleted from this BLP had been stable for more than a month; and, seventh, this stuff has already been discussed extensively at this talk page in early August (e.g. here). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Attention, all of you: I have asked an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the revert war that has been going on about this picture. As far as I can see, a new picture has been added to the infobox twice today, and the longstanding original photo has been restored twice. Remember that this article is under Discretionary Sanctions, which are intended to stabilize the article and prevent exactly this kind of edit warring. I am not accusing anyone of anything and I am not taking a position on the question of what image to use. I am just reminding you all that there can be immediate sanctions, including blocks, for violating the Discretionary Sanctions spelled out at the top of this page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Editors changing the image, must follow this instruction: "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." There are currently five pictures to choose from which may cause discussion to bog down and meander as choosing the "best" picture often boils down to personal preference. If editors wish to have a quicker resolution then I suggest having a weighted poll (top pick gets 5 points, second gets 4, etc.,) that lasts three or four days. Note that this is only a suggestion. -- NeilN talk to me 22:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I object to this edit. According to the RFC close, "Consequently, I find that there is rough consensus (the usual Wikipedia standard for consensus) to implement the proposal. As far as I can tell from the discussion, the proposed content hasn't been challenged through reverts yet, so it doesn't need the 'firm' consensus required by the applicable discretionary sanctions." Rough consensus is not enough to reinsert the new material, but it was reinserted nevertheless, which violates the discretionary sanctions. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Here is a start of working draft to address concerns that we should cover Trump's false statements in the body of the article. I propose that this would be inserted in the Presidential campaign, 2016 section before Primaries. There seem to be plenty of material to work with, so this could easily be expanded.
Material that would be moved from other sections is shown in orange. - Mr X 16:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Trump's campaign received significant media coverage beginning with his announcement that he was running for President. Many of the statements Trump has made during his presidential campaign have been controversial, and many are false.
[1] Fact checking organizations such as
PolitiFact and
FactCheck.org have noted that, based on the statements they have analyzed, Trump has made more false statements than his opponents.
[2]Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). Trump's made various false claims over several months that President Obama and Secretary Clinton fostered, and even founded ISIS.
[3]
[4]
[5] After insisting that he meant that Obama literally founded ISIS, Trump eventually capitulated and said he was being sarcastic.
[6] Similarly, Trump has made false statements associating Mexican immigrants with criminal activity,
[7]
[8] claiming that the U.S. is the "highest taxed nation in the world",
[9]
[10], and falsely stating that the U.S. unemployment rate "anywhere from 18 to 20 percent", and two months later saying "Our real unemployment rate is 42 percent".
[11]
[12]
According to The Washington Post, 65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity, far exceeding that of most politicians.
[7] Trump has been promoted as being a "straight-talker", and more authentic than typical politicians.
[13]
Florida A&M University Professor Michael LaBossiere commented that Trump "perfected the outrageous untruth as a campaign tool," adding, "He makes a clearly false or even absurdly false claim, which draws the attention of the media. He then rides that wave until it comes time to call up another one." According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
[14] In its 2016 mid -year report, PolitiFact found 60 percent of Trump's claims to be false.
[15]
[16]
References
|
---|
References
|
MrX, thanks for your work on this, but I think this is WP:UNDUE. We had to have a long discussion to even get the current two sentences into the article; I don't think there would ever be consensus for a whole section like this. I for one wouldn't support it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Much of the media attention on Trump's campaign has been focused on allegations that many statements made by Trump during the campaign are misleading or untrue. Various claims include that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are the founders of ISIS, that the majority of Mexican immigrants are violent criminals, that the US is the highest taxed nation on the world and that the unemployment rate is as high as 42%.
Trump has been promoted as being a "straight-talker", and more authentic than typical politicians. However, according to The Washington Post, 65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity, far exceeding that of most politicians. According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
( edit conflict)I'm not suggesting that he is a straight talker, but he is often claimed to be such by his supporters. It's not contentious that his supporters claim this, and it's very germane to the subject of this proposed section. It should be trivial to find a source. Also, feel free to edit away at my proposal above to change anything you guys want to. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Consider this proposed language: "65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity...." Suppose candidate X makes one false statement during a campaign, and it is the only statement of candidate X that is fact checked by a fact-checker. In contrast, candidate Y makes a hundred false statements during the campaign, and the fact-checker fact-checks 200 statements by candidate Y. So, the fact-checker says that 100% of fact-checked statements by candidate X are false, compared to only 50% for candidate Y. How are such statistics useful for Wikipedia? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant Please decide what your argument is. First, you were concerned about presenting raw percentages. I suggested that we also include the number of facts checked and the number determined to be false. Now your argument is "those numbers do not do justice to the issue at hand." The issue at hand is an independent source checked statements from both candidate and found that most of Trump's were false. That's a simple fact. There is no reason, based on their reputation, to assume that they cooked the figures. As far as The Washington Post is concerned, I think it's great that an independent news organization checks facts on behalf of their readers. Isn't that how free press in a free democracy is supposed to work?- Mr X 16:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I could accept this abridged version. One quibble: I don't like using the "founders of ISIS" example - because he semi-sorta retracted it, and because most people knew he didn't mean it literally - unless Reliable Sources consider it one of the most notable. There are many others to choose from, such as the "I saw New Jersey Muslims cheering 9/11" story which he repeated many times and never retracted. Or "I opposed going into Iraq" or "I am self funding my campaign, I don't take donations". I would also like to add to the final sentence as follows: "According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, so that PolitiFact gave its 2015 Lie of the Year award to "The campaign misstatements of Donald Trump". [6] -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I think politifact's main page on Trump is a better source if we have to cite a fact checker. It's got a larger number of statements checked than the WaPo source, and the proportional difference between Trump's total fact checked claims and Clinton's total fact checked claims (231 for Trump and 243 for Clinton) is smaller. Large sample sizes make for more accurate results, and smaller differences in sample sizes make the comparison better. Also, for anyone disputing that Trump is less honest, 70% of his checked statements were rated false in some way, compared to 27% for Clinton. 22% of Clinton's claims were rated entirely true, compared to 4% of Trumps. 18% of Trump's claims were rated "Pants on Fire" (which they define as "The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."), compared to 2% of Clinton's.
Regarding the "founders of ISIS" claim, I believe he later doubled-down on it and said he meant it literally, but I'm fine with replacing it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@ MrX, MjolnirPants, Buster7, and MelanieN: Thank you for trying to address other editors' concerns by repairing the proposed material. But there is no consensus that PolitiFact is a reputable source for ideologically contentious material about Trump's false statements. And you must respect that lack of consensus.
NOCON policy
Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take an action. For ideologically
contentious matters related to
living people, a lack of consensus results in its removal.
TALKDONTREVERT policy
Consensus can't be assumed simply because editors stop responding to discussions in which they have already participated. --
Dervorguilla (
talk)
06:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
If their rating system is sending false messages ... they're doing exactly what they were founded to stop: using language to spread false impressions.
PolitiFact.com ... is out with its 'Lie of the Year'... In the past ... PolitiFact vouched for [this] Lie... Exposing it conclusively as such would have required a degree of expertise few journalists have... Its past evaluations of the statement were ... merely opinion pieces... Selling opinion pieces by labeling them 'fact checks' is fundamentally dishonest.
@ Dervorguilla: I am an interested editor and I don't see the developement of the RfC the same way you do. True, DR F said "You're citing unreliable opinion sources about other sources by PolitiFact to say that PolitiFact isn't reliable in general, and saying that the cited PolitiFact and FactCheck.org sources are opinion sources... We're not getting anywhere here. I'm going to start an RFC." But when he initiated the RfC he asked
Should the lead section, which currently says: "His statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, ..." be changed to read (changes in bold): "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false,[1][2] ..."
and provided references from FactCheck and Politfact. To me the RfC was about the addition of "many" and "false" and this, and only this question, is what I (and I believe other editors) gave comment and support or oppose to. To me (and I believe others) the RfC was not about the References. The discussion drifted that way and the comments and ivotes became muddled to the point of losing clarity as to what was being judged and responded to; "many and false" or FactCheck and PolitiFact. You say above...He was clearly replying to this comment in particular.... I may have been clear to you, but that is in no way what was clear to me. To me the RfC drifted off target and any concensus it reached is tainted by lack of clarity as to what editors were Ivoting on. I see support for "many and false". You see responses to the side issue of References. To me, while the RfC discussion was lively and informative, it is not a reliable answer to the question; should we change to, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false"....? Buster Seven Talk 13:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Added clarification: I am one of those that accept that PolitiFact is a reliable source. Buster Seven Talk 20:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Dervorguilla, I have sometimes seen you claim that something "does not have consensus" when you are the sole dissenter. Please remember that WP:Consensus does not have to be unanimous. In this case, most people here seemed to accept that PolitiFact is a reliable source. It has won a Pulitzer Prize), and it is produced by the Miami Herald which is a reliable source. I believe we did have consensus on that point, even if you argued against it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not think RSN is the appropriate route when a single editor (out of what, 20?) claims that PolitiFact--PolitFact!--isn't reliable. The appropriate avenue when there is a good faith dispute as to whether there's consensus is WP:ANRFC. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?. - Mr X 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Should the lead say "have been controversial or hyperbolic" instead of "have been controversial"? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
“ | Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or hyperbolic, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots from both sides of the political spectrum. | ” |
What the body of this article says about this subject, as of August 31, 2016
| |||
---|---|---|---|
References
|
Instead of inserting "or hyperbolic", we could hypothetically insert "or false" or "or dishonest", et cetera. I think "hyperbolic" is much better because the words "false" and "dishonest" lack nuance, because hyperbole is a major (if not the major) form of Trump's falsities, because a bare assertion of "falseness" or "dishonesty" sounds too much like a partisan attack, and because the discretionary sanctions applicable to this BLP require not merely consensus but "firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This has been a longstanding sentence in the lede:
Recently that sentence was modified to read:
I split it into two sentences because I thought the two halves of the sentence were not really related to each other:
Just now someone recombined them, in a way that seems to me to imply a causal connection between "controversial statements" and "protests and riots" that I don't think is justified:
I would like to see this combined version of the sentence reverted, and any one of the three previous versions restored. I don't know that we need to have a huge discussion/consensus over the matter, but I would not be comfortable reverting it myself, per Discretionary Sanctions. Thoughts, anyone? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
From memory, it seems that the infobox used to be titled "Donald J. Trump", a frequently-used name including by Trump's own web site. Any clue why this is now only "Donald Trump"? Can we restore the middle initial without triggering a fight? — JFG talk 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Having been reverted by Awilley, I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page. I'm wondering why I was reverted. Graham ( talk) 02:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Our article makes no mention that the USFL franchise was originally owned by Donald Trump. I first remember becoming aware of Trump when the team signed Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker, who was an underclassmen. Not sure but I think he (Walker) may have been the first underclassman to sign with a professional team and forego his college career. Shouldn't that be mentioned? 22:21, 2 September 2016 User:Buster7
How come the infobox has a footnotes section without footnotes and a {{
listen}} box which appears to be invisible? I would just remove it, but there's a hidden note that says <!-- Unnecessary, BUT DO ''not'' REMOVE -->
.
Graham (
talk)
23:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Unnecessary, BUT DO ''not'' REMOVE -->
" but forget to remove the "DO not REMOVE
" label itself. I also mistakenly add the "footnotes" parameter based on a misreading of
Template:Infobox person, which clearly says, "Footnotes: Notes about any of the infobox data", not "Footnotes: Footnotes in any of the infobox data". My error. --
Dervorguilla (
talk)
00:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)There has been a back and forth about whether to include that a floor in the building was sold to Saudia Arabia for 4.5 million or whatever. Thoughts-- Malerooster ( talk) 01:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
If its relevance stems primarily from the Clinton connection, then it would be more appropriate in the article about his 2016 campaign, assuming that reliable sources have linked these things together. But mentioning it here without explaining relevance would just leave readers wondering why we're paying so much attention to one transaction like this. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
At this point is it being reported only by the New York Daily News, a tabloid, and a blog at The Hill. Unless and until it becomes a generally reported and prominent issue, it should not be in this article OR the campaign article IMO. Also, since it has been added to the article once and removed, it is identified as contentious material, and it MUST NOT be restored to the article without consensus, per Discretionary Sanctions. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The pics of Trump's two ex wives in " Family" section, is weirdly not right (not good). (I'm sure policy-wise it is ... UNDUE. But I suspect a greater problem, one of subtle smear against Trump, by including all wives, current & ex, as though "equal", like a tribe, like a harem. The reason I suspect this is because many Clinton campaign surrogates have propagated the idea that two divorces somehow makes Trump "immoral" and therefore unqualified/unfit to be president on that basis. That's what the inclusion of the series of pics connotes in this article.) Blue-links to the ex wives' names are what's appropriate. I doubt there's any equivalent BLP parading pics of ex wives equal to the subject's wife in "Family" section or any other BLP section. Can we please delete these excess/unnecessary/inappropriate pics? IHTS ( talk) 07:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
For that matter, how do people feel about the row of mug shots of his three adult children? I haven't seen that in other articles, either. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
We mention The Donald which is clearly the most notable but what about others? This year for example due to the elections the nickname "Daddy" or " Daddy Donald" has popped up:
How much coverage in popular media would warrant a mention? Ranze ( talk) 09:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's look past those two at the earliest three then. I would argue that there is a lack of evidence that this is Milo's idea, as I've yet to find a use of it by Milo which predates Parker's use of it in January. So far the earliest use I've found from MY is February 19 so that still puts Kathleen a month ahead of him. If anyone could identify an earlier use then we could explore that possibility, but even then, a lot of usage has happened outside of Breitbart, as you can see below. I'll cite the above 3 non-BB more thoroughly so their source is clear.
WASHINGTON — So you say you want a daddy for your president? .. Big Daddy's the boss
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)The Trump Children comprise a far smaller subset within all of these groups. They're looking for a father figure
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 11 September 2016 suggested (
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)all the Donald Trump supporters in the audience reply: "Daddy's going to win! Daddy's going to win! Hooray!" It's not hard to find Trump supporters who describe their preferred candidate in such directly paternal terms.
In the process of citing these I also found another source for "The King" being a nickname:
"You can always tell when the king is here," Mr. Trump's longtime butler here, Anthony Senecal, said of the master of the house and Republican presidential candidate. The king was returning that day to his Versailles
The initial results were also just from searching "Daddy Donald". It did not initially occur to me to try th inverse " Daddy Trump", which as you can see produces additional results including Big Daddy Trump also having recurrent use:
All will be well with Rich, Successful Daddy Trump in the White House.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)As surprising as Coulter's disappointment in Trump's behavior (considering her otherwise steadfast commitment to the candidate), it was nowhere near as horrifying as what Yiannopoulos said to prompt it. When Coulter said that she was "a little testy with our man right now," the Breitbart editor joked, "Daddy's annoyed you?" DADDY.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Next, I want to see Big Daddy Trump come out to play.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)But that's how paternalism works—Daddy Trump gets to decide who gets rewarded and who gets punished.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)the best part of this is Rush's voice dropping into a sort of audible leer when he talks about the ecstasy Clinton-haters will feel when Daddy Trump gives 'em what they want
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Just how far will the GOP's Big Daddy go
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)None of them are divorced, public philanderers, substance abusers, or so lacking in employable skills that they can't find a job with Daddy
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I don't know if these sites are or aren't reliable sources for actual election facts, but all (except perhaps PoliticusUSA which doesn't have an article, but which I have included because Jones' is the earliest place I've found the 'Daddy' phrase applied to him so far) are notable media aggregates which demonstrate widespread use of this "Daddy" nickname. It seems worth considering whether to list them after "The Donald" as secondary/tertiary nicknames of more recent birth. Some of these reference MY but a lot of others don't, it seems to have taken on a life of its own outside quoting him.
By the way @ NeilN: was special:diff/738676929 in relation to this or something else? I get the impression I'm being threatened for bringing this up and would like to understand why. Ranze ( talk) 01:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This recent edit replaced the sentence "In December 1969 Trump received a high number in the draft lottery, which would also have exempted him from service" with "Richard Flahavan, a longtime agent of the Selective Service System, stated Trump's deferment had made his draft number unimportant". I object to this change, for several reasons. First, it's not good to start talking about a draft number without first saying when and how he got the draft number; second, Flahavan is already discussed in a footnote (that includes a quote from the NYT); third, the NYT discussed Flahavan without repeating his POV in the NYT's voice; fourth, a separate footnote quotes ABC as having a slightly different POV than Flahavan ("Nor do the documents categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft"); fifth, the language deleted from this BLP did not contradict either Flahavan or ABC News; sixth, the sentence deleted from this BLP had been stable for more than a month; and, seventh, this stuff has already been discussed extensively at this talk page in early August (e.g. here). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Attention, all of you: I have asked an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the revert war that has been going on about this picture. As far as I can see, a new picture has been added to the infobox twice today, and the longstanding original photo has been restored twice. Remember that this article is under Discretionary Sanctions, which are intended to stabilize the article and prevent exactly this kind of edit warring. I am not accusing anyone of anything and I am not taking a position on the question of what image to use. I am just reminding you all that there can be immediate sanctions, including blocks, for violating the Discretionary Sanctions spelled out at the top of this page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Editors changing the image, must follow this instruction: "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." There are currently five pictures to choose from which may cause discussion to bog down and meander as choosing the "best" picture often boils down to personal preference. If editors wish to have a quicker resolution then I suggest having a weighted poll (top pick gets 5 points, second gets 4, etc.,) that lasts three or four days. Note that this is only a suggestion. -- NeilN talk to me 22:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I object to this edit. According to the RFC close, "Consequently, I find that there is rough consensus (the usual Wikipedia standard for consensus) to implement the proposal. As far as I can tell from the discussion, the proposed content hasn't been challenged through reverts yet, so it doesn't need the 'firm' consensus required by the applicable discretionary sanctions." Rough consensus is not enough to reinsert the new material, but it was reinserted nevertheless, which violates the discretionary sanctions. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)