![]() | 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 1 |
There are definitely parts of Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury" that are wrong, sloppy, or betray off-the-record confidence. But there are two things he gets absolutely right, even in the eyes of White House officials who think some of the book's scenes are fiction: his spot-on portrait of Trump as an emotionally erratic president, and the low opinion of him among some of those serving him.
I can't guarantee the trustworthiness of this source. Mass media mostly agree with the entire book. Still, smaller parts of the book might not be fully true. The journalist has been criticised as well. I consider this relevant, though a footnote should be enough. -- Albin Schmitt ( talk) 01:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
References
I have split off "reviews" from "reaction" but I'm not sure we have everything in the right place. Some of the fallout (Trump's comments, Simpson's Sanders' comments, the lawyer actions) is under "release", some of it is under "reaction", and we might want to include something about the breach between Trump and Bannon that resulted. (Or maybe not; it is already detailed at the Bannon article, maybe that's enough.) I'm hoping someone will be able to put these things together in a way that flows logically; I'm not sure that's where we are at the moment, and I'm not going to have the time to look at it just now. --
MelanieN (
talk)
19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Two lists of claims or revelations that could serve as a checklist of points that the article should perhaps include:
http://variety.com/2018/politics/news/fire-and-fury-biggest-revelations-michael-wolff-trump-book-1202654214/
10 Most Explosive Revelations in Michael Wolff’s Trump Book ‘Fire and Fury’
By Ted Johnson
Variety
January 5, 2018
http://variety.com/2018/politics/news/fire-and-fury-wildest-claims-michael-wolff-book-1202654894/
15 Wildest Claims From Michael Wolff’s ‘Fire and Fury’
Among other things, Steve Bannon just loves cursing
By Sonia Saraiya
Variety
January 5, 2018
-- Nbauman ( talk) 04:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe parts of it. And then there are other parts that are factually wrong. I mean the thing about Michael Wolff and his style, which apparently nobody in the White House appears to have done a cursory Google search on him and sort of what his M.O. is, but he believes in larger truths and narratives. So he creates a narrative that is notionally true, that's conceptually true. The details are often wrong. And I can -- I can see several places in the book that are wrong [...] So, for instance, I mean he in accurately describes a report in "The New York Times." He inaccurately characteri[s]es a couple of incidents that took place early on in the administration. He gets basic details wrong.
Spotted in the new Michael Wolff book about Trump: A Four Seasons breakfast featuring "Washington Post national reporter Mark Berman" (I have never had breakfast at the Four Seasons, never actually been there) (but now I wonder if I can use this to go eat there and expense it?)
It seems like there might be some discussion about the reliability of the book ongoing. I don't know how we should handle it. As far as I understand, he is sloppy at points in the book and mistaken or factual wrong at other. More over he gets some of the details wrong, according to some credible journalists. But he got the major picture of Donald Trump right, as far as I can see.-- Albin Schmitt ( talk) 04:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
References
It looks like this article is about to turn into a lightning rod -- can we temporarily protect it? I've seen the description changing from non-fiction to fiction and non-fiction in the last ten minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.211.63.32 ( talk) 12:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed "It reveals the contempt in which Trump is held by nearly all of his associates." from the lead because it is not documented in the article as far as I can see. Furthermore, in my reading I've actually not come across the word "contempt" being used. Childish or similar is the most common descriptive word. I'm going to remove it again while we discuss. Gandydancer ( talk) 04:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Normally, citations in an article provide support for the preceding assertion. In this article, though, which is about a book, we have citations that are supporting facts as presented in the book. Is this appropriate? Isn't supporting the facts in the book beyond the scope of this article? Take the section on Content. The first two citations in that section would be appropriate if the purpose of the article was to discuss the factual reliability of the book.-- Bemcfarland ( talk) 19:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there some reason why this article doesn't include more of the quotes (particularly from Bannon) that made this book into such a media sensation? Without them it is not at all clear what all the furor is about. People have been adding those quotes ("treason", "dumb as a brick", impeachment predictions, etc.) to other articles all over Wikipedia, and we have been removing them, saying they don't belong in peripherally related articles, they should be in the article about the book. But they aren't here. Is there consensus not to include them, have they been added and removed, or has just nobody gotten around to it? Will anyone object if I add some of them? Asking Muboshgu in particular since you wrote the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, quotes are too often tool of the lazy writer: good for filler to reach a word count in high school, but often unnecessary. A good encylopedia article should set itself a step or two above the fray of primary sources, opinions, sensationalism, yellow journalism, punditry, churnalism, and day-to-day minutiae. We can report on controversies without perpetuating or engaging in them. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so it should not necessarily mimic the tone or structure of any daily news article (which by definition reports the news of the day, hour, or minute, with no regards to lasting importance). --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Should Trump's comment on Sally Yates be included? It's also received wide coverage but I'm two minds about it, on BLP grounds. I mean, it's a kind of statement that we would normally delete on Wikipedia for being "grossly insulting" etc. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I added the following to the intro of this article:
The 10th page of the book's prologue includes a disclaimer which states: "Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true." [1] [2] [3] [4]
Bk33725681 ( talk) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
No, folks. What the statement means is simply that Wolff wants the reader to know that some of the people whom he interviewed and whom he quotes were lying to him, since, according to him, they tend to lie all the time. Wolff is very obviously - you have to be a bit strange in the head to think this - NOT saying "I am lying", he is saying "people who I interviewed lied to me". Sheesh. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I was the one who put the disclaimer into the "content" section (moving it out of the lede). I felt, as some others here felt, that it was important to include that statement in its entirety, since it would not be easy to paraphrase. I see that Volunteer Marek removed it. I guess that makes it "challenged" so consensus is required to restore it. I continue to think that the statement, in its entirety, should be included in the "contents" section. It provides context to the material, and it gives his own take on the veracity of the book which others are challenging. What do others think? -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There's been press coverage surrounding a hoax which suggested that there was an excerpt from Fire and Fury that described Trump complaining that there wasn't a "gorilla channel" on the TVs at the White House. Given that it's indirectly connected to the book, would this be appropriate to mention here? ViperSnake151 Talk 16:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Info I added was deleted with the note, "WSJ requires subscription". I got this info from a google search, in full, but when used here as a source one does get the "subscription needed" note for the full article. I see this as a huge problem for WP and it's only going to get worse. However, Jimbo, who does zero editing, sees it as no problem (per a recent post on his talk page). What to do? Gandydancer ( talk) 20:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
|quote=
. I don't think we do much more. I also reviewed the added content and can confirm that nothing was cherrypicked. I have access to The Wall Street Journal through one or more databases (which means that I'm unable see images or captions and such) and if there's something that I can do, please ping me.
Politrukki (
talk)
21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
From this analysis and others assessing the impact of the cease and desist letter written by Trump's lawyer, this is a a bookmark on history for Fire and Fury. Quoting:
It is worthwhile having this in the article because it is unprecedented presidential behavior. It doesn't matter if Trump never pursues the lawsuit. The cease and desist letter against the book creates a piece of history and reveals Trump's action as president, making it historically relevant both for him and the book. -- Zefr ( talk) 03:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I think a brief mention would be fine, although the paragraph proposed above is too long and probably undue. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Some tightening and tweaking: GMG talk 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
According to reporting by the Washington Post and Politico, legal experts and historians have viewed threats of imminent legal action over the book as unprecedented for a sitting president and serving to chill public discourse and free speech. [1] [2] On January 8, the lawyer for Wolff and Henry Holt and Company issued a letter defying the cease and desist and claim of defamation, stating "my clients do not intend to cease publication, no such retraction will occur, and no apology is warranted." [3] John Sargent, CEO of Macmillan-Holt, informed the company’s employees that "as citizens, we must demand that President Trump understand and abide by the First Amendment of our Constitution." [3]
References
- ^ Boutrous, Ted; Kidder, Teddy (4 January 2018). "There's No Way Trump Can Stop Wolff From Publishing His Book". Politico Magazine. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
- ^ Parker, Ashley; Dawsey, Josh (4 January 2018). "Trump's effort to stop publication of scathing book is a break in precedent". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
- ^ a b Alter, Alexandra (8 January 2018). "Publisher Defied Trump to 'Defend the Principles of the First Amendment'". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
Would there be any disagreement if I were to remove copy from journalists that have not made a name for themselves and are listed at their site only as "senior journalist"? It seems to me that this gives too much weight to any random journalist who happens to report on the book. If they don't have a WP article I'd guess that they don't qualify as a person we should be giving voice to. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:50, 11 January 2018 (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 1 |
There are definitely parts of Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury" that are wrong, sloppy, or betray off-the-record confidence. But there are two things he gets absolutely right, even in the eyes of White House officials who think some of the book's scenes are fiction: his spot-on portrait of Trump as an emotionally erratic president, and the low opinion of him among some of those serving him.
I can't guarantee the trustworthiness of this source. Mass media mostly agree with the entire book. Still, smaller parts of the book might not be fully true. The journalist has been criticised as well. I consider this relevant, though a footnote should be enough. -- Albin Schmitt ( talk) 01:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
References
I have split off "reviews" from "reaction" but I'm not sure we have everything in the right place. Some of the fallout (Trump's comments, Simpson's Sanders' comments, the lawyer actions) is under "release", some of it is under "reaction", and we might want to include something about the breach between Trump and Bannon that resulted. (Or maybe not; it is already detailed at the Bannon article, maybe that's enough.) I'm hoping someone will be able to put these things together in a way that flows logically; I'm not sure that's where we are at the moment, and I'm not going to have the time to look at it just now. --
MelanieN (
talk)
19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Two lists of claims or revelations that could serve as a checklist of points that the article should perhaps include:
http://variety.com/2018/politics/news/fire-and-fury-biggest-revelations-michael-wolff-trump-book-1202654214/
10 Most Explosive Revelations in Michael Wolff’s Trump Book ‘Fire and Fury’
By Ted Johnson
Variety
January 5, 2018
http://variety.com/2018/politics/news/fire-and-fury-wildest-claims-michael-wolff-book-1202654894/
15 Wildest Claims From Michael Wolff’s ‘Fire and Fury’
Among other things, Steve Bannon just loves cursing
By Sonia Saraiya
Variety
January 5, 2018
-- Nbauman ( talk) 04:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe parts of it. And then there are other parts that are factually wrong. I mean the thing about Michael Wolff and his style, which apparently nobody in the White House appears to have done a cursory Google search on him and sort of what his M.O. is, but he believes in larger truths and narratives. So he creates a narrative that is notionally true, that's conceptually true. The details are often wrong. And I can -- I can see several places in the book that are wrong [...] So, for instance, I mean he in accurately describes a report in "The New York Times." He inaccurately characteri[s]es a couple of incidents that took place early on in the administration. He gets basic details wrong.
Spotted in the new Michael Wolff book about Trump: A Four Seasons breakfast featuring "Washington Post national reporter Mark Berman" (I have never had breakfast at the Four Seasons, never actually been there) (but now I wonder if I can use this to go eat there and expense it?)
It seems like there might be some discussion about the reliability of the book ongoing. I don't know how we should handle it. As far as I understand, he is sloppy at points in the book and mistaken or factual wrong at other. More over he gets some of the details wrong, according to some credible journalists. But he got the major picture of Donald Trump right, as far as I can see.-- Albin Schmitt ( talk) 04:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
References
It looks like this article is about to turn into a lightning rod -- can we temporarily protect it? I've seen the description changing from non-fiction to fiction and non-fiction in the last ten minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.211.63.32 ( talk) 12:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed "It reveals the contempt in which Trump is held by nearly all of his associates." from the lead because it is not documented in the article as far as I can see. Furthermore, in my reading I've actually not come across the word "contempt" being used. Childish or similar is the most common descriptive word. I'm going to remove it again while we discuss. Gandydancer ( talk) 04:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Normally, citations in an article provide support for the preceding assertion. In this article, though, which is about a book, we have citations that are supporting facts as presented in the book. Is this appropriate? Isn't supporting the facts in the book beyond the scope of this article? Take the section on Content. The first two citations in that section would be appropriate if the purpose of the article was to discuss the factual reliability of the book.-- Bemcfarland ( talk) 19:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there some reason why this article doesn't include more of the quotes (particularly from Bannon) that made this book into such a media sensation? Without them it is not at all clear what all the furor is about. People have been adding those quotes ("treason", "dumb as a brick", impeachment predictions, etc.) to other articles all over Wikipedia, and we have been removing them, saying they don't belong in peripherally related articles, they should be in the article about the book. But they aren't here. Is there consensus not to include them, have they been added and removed, or has just nobody gotten around to it? Will anyone object if I add some of them? Asking Muboshgu in particular since you wrote the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, quotes are too often tool of the lazy writer: good for filler to reach a word count in high school, but often unnecessary. A good encylopedia article should set itself a step or two above the fray of primary sources, opinions, sensationalism, yellow journalism, punditry, churnalism, and day-to-day minutiae. We can report on controversies without perpetuating or engaging in them. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so it should not necessarily mimic the tone or structure of any daily news article (which by definition reports the news of the day, hour, or minute, with no regards to lasting importance). --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Should Trump's comment on Sally Yates be included? It's also received wide coverage but I'm two minds about it, on BLP grounds. I mean, it's a kind of statement that we would normally delete on Wikipedia for being "grossly insulting" etc. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I added the following to the intro of this article:
The 10th page of the book's prologue includes a disclaimer which states: "Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true." [1] [2] [3] [4]
Bk33725681 ( talk) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
No, folks. What the statement means is simply that Wolff wants the reader to know that some of the people whom he interviewed and whom he quotes were lying to him, since, according to him, they tend to lie all the time. Wolff is very obviously - you have to be a bit strange in the head to think this - NOT saying "I am lying", he is saying "people who I interviewed lied to me". Sheesh. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I was the one who put the disclaimer into the "content" section (moving it out of the lede). I felt, as some others here felt, that it was important to include that statement in its entirety, since it would not be easy to paraphrase. I see that Volunteer Marek removed it. I guess that makes it "challenged" so consensus is required to restore it. I continue to think that the statement, in its entirety, should be included in the "contents" section. It provides context to the material, and it gives his own take on the veracity of the book which others are challenging. What do others think? -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There's been press coverage surrounding a hoax which suggested that there was an excerpt from Fire and Fury that described Trump complaining that there wasn't a "gorilla channel" on the TVs at the White House. Given that it's indirectly connected to the book, would this be appropriate to mention here? ViperSnake151 Talk 16:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Info I added was deleted with the note, "WSJ requires subscription". I got this info from a google search, in full, but when used here as a source one does get the "subscription needed" note for the full article. I see this as a huge problem for WP and it's only going to get worse. However, Jimbo, who does zero editing, sees it as no problem (per a recent post on his talk page). What to do? Gandydancer ( talk) 20:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
|quote=
. I don't think we do much more. I also reviewed the added content and can confirm that nothing was cherrypicked. I have access to The Wall Street Journal through one or more databases (which means that I'm unable see images or captions and such) and if there's something that I can do, please ping me.
Politrukki (
talk)
21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
From this analysis and others assessing the impact of the cease and desist letter written by Trump's lawyer, this is a a bookmark on history for Fire and Fury. Quoting:
It is worthwhile having this in the article because it is unprecedented presidential behavior. It doesn't matter if Trump never pursues the lawsuit. The cease and desist letter against the book creates a piece of history and reveals Trump's action as president, making it historically relevant both for him and the book. -- Zefr ( talk) 03:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I think a brief mention would be fine, although the paragraph proposed above is too long and probably undue. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Some tightening and tweaking: GMG talk 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
According to reporting by the Washington Post and Politico, legal experts and historians have viewed threats of imminent legal action over the book as unprecedented for a sitting president and serving to chill public discourse and free speech. [1] [2] On January 8, the lawyer for Wolff and Henry Holt and Company issued a letter defying the cease and desist and claim of defamation, stating "my clients do not intend to cease publication, no such retraction will occur, and no apology is warranted." [3] John Sargent, CEO of Macmillan-Holt, informed the company’s employees that "as citizens, we must demand that President Trump understand and abide by the First Amendment of our Constitution." [3]
References
- ^ Boutrous, Ted; Kidder, Teddy (4 January 2018). "There's No Way Trump Can Stop Wolff From Publishing His Book". Politico Magazine. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
- ^ Parker, Ashley; Dawsey, Josh (4 January 2018). "Trump's effort to stop publication of scathing book is a break in precedent". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
- ^ a b Alter, Alexandra (8 January 2018). "Publisher Defied Trump to 'Defend the Principles of the First Amendment'". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
Would there be any disagreement if I were to remove copy from journalists that have not made a name for themselves and are listed at their site only as "senior journalist"? It seems to me that this gives too much weight to any random journalist who happens to report on the book. If they don't have a WP article I'd guess that they don't qualify as a person we should be giving voice to. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)