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 140 | ← | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | → | Archive 150 |
Isn't "University of Pennsylvania" the standard? Just wondering. GuardianH (for some reason, the sign function isn't working for me).
Anythingyouwant, none of the sources say that it was
a challenge, major or otherwise, for the media to distinguish falsehoods from mere falsities. Both words indicate untruths/untrue statements without indicating whether intent to deceive is or isn't involved. Journalists shied away from calling them lies since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive? How can journalists know what’s in Trump’s mind, even when he repeatedly says transparently untrue things
(your WaPo source). Per consensus item 22, we cannot call Trump a liar or call his falsehoods lies. IMO that includes using the definition of lie, i.e., uttering a falsehood with intent to deceive. We shouldn't be using either one of these sentences without a new consensus: His falsehoods (which are intentional as distinguished from falsities which may be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity
(
version Anythingyouwant), His intentional falsehoods (as distinguished from counterfactual statements which might be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity
(
version
SPECIFICO). Also, do we want to get into dictionary definitions?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 15:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
His falsehoods (which are deliberately false) and falsities (which may not be deliberately false) became a distinctive part of his political identitywas challenged, you reinserted it with minor rephrasing 10 hours later, without discussing it on the Talk page per the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES (24 BRD cycle). Way to go! Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Could a presidential statement, no matter how blatantly false, be deemed a "lie" since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive?. That's falsity in the uncountable sense, I believe. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding occasions where this Wikipedia article currently uses the word “falsehood” in Wikipedia’s voice, there are at least five alternatives.
I think the worst options would be the first and the third, because then we would be violating our own rule #22. So I recommend the second, fourth, or fifth alternatives. But if we must choose the first or third, then the third seems much better to me. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The order of the definitions may not mean what you think ... All the senses of a word that are listed are equal, and not in a George-Orwellesque all-words-are-equal-but-some-are-more-equal-than-others sort of way.Merriam Webster. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
We can say he made false statements or uttered falsehoods because RS tell us he did. There also came a point, after long hesitation, where RS started calling him a liar and saying he was telling lies because there was so much information and debunking in existence that he had to have known that what he was saying was not true. He simply doesn't care. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Right, if RS say it so can we. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
We have a whole article detailing the lack of veracity for Trump's statements. The longstanding version should be reinstated. If we want to ADD an explanation about why the media changed their policy, that could be ADDED as good content. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
We'd be better off waiting until he begins his campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. I'm certain there'll be plenty of sourced material to add, by then. GoodDay ( talk) 16:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
If someone ought to know that what they are saying is not true, is that a lie? Major media sources thought so and literally changed their policy and started calling Trump's false statements "lies". WaPo's fact-checkers even had to create a new category of lies because of Trump.
He is part of a rare class of liars who will repeat debunked lies. Normal people don't want to be classed as liars, so they don't repeat a lie when exposed. Trump's tactic is different as he doubles down using Hitler's (his mentor) Big Lie propaganda technique.
I said "rare" but that is no longer true. GOP politicians have adopted his methods for several reasons: he gets away with it, so they hope to do the same; he pressures them to as a loyalty test; they are compromised/blackmailed, so they abandon any sense of honesty. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This whole discussion is pointless. Wikipedia content is based on what Reliable Sources say. It is not based on our interpretation of dictionary definitions. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:17, 30 May 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.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I noticed that in the article you mentioned that Donald Trump was wrong in his claims that the election was stolen, but the recent documentary 2000 Mules showed that in fact Trump was correct in his claim Ragnar Danneskjöld 7 ( talk) 14:15, 8 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.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are two areas that are politically biased conjecture and not fact.
1. "falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."
1a. The claim of electoral fraud is currently being investigated, which is what should be noted, and not that it is false. This is conjecture. The statement that former President Trump "urged supports to march to the Capitol" is misleading, as it is missing context and seeks to paint a politically skewed picture.
2. "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.[1]"
2a. This statement is patently false, and uses a politically biased source to make the claim. The accurate answer is that Trump is a controversial figure, with some ranking him low, and others high, depending on political affiliation and beliefs on his policies.
3. "Trump was slow to address the spread of the disease, initially dismissing the imminent threat and ignoring persistent public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Secretary Azar.[476][477] Instead, throughout January and February he focused on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.[478] "
3a. Again, this is patently false. President Trump at the time attempted to enact a travel ban from countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, but it was deemed 'racist' by Congress and subsequently repealed. Context is missing here.
4. "Trump established the White House Coronavirus Task Force on January 29, 2020.[492] Beginning in mid-March, Trump held a daily task force press conference, joined by medical experts and other administration officials,[493] sometimes disagreeing with them by promoting unproven treatments.[494] Trump was the main speaker at the briefings, where he praised his own response to the pandemic, frequently criticized rival presidential candidate Joe Biden, and denounced the press.[493][495] On March 16, he acknowledged for the first time that the pandemic was not under control and that months of disruption to daily lives and a recession might occur.[496] His repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" and "China virus" to describe COVID-19 drew criticism from health experts.[497][498][499]"
4a. The political skewing here is quite obvious, and Wikipedia must remain apolitical to be a true source of valid information. While these actions occurred, this paragraph was written with clear bias, ignoring the positive aspects of the news conferences regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. There is also no mention whatsoever about the time and resources poured into the creation of the COVID vaccines.
Wikipedia is here to be an medium for factual information, not a politically skewed blog. I review for several academic journals, and I am a Libertarian, but I keep politics out of my writing. This whole article is nothing but a sloppily written political hit piece. Please correct this article (there are many more examples that I did not touch on) to make it apolitical, and add the positive aspects along with the negative to paint a clear and accurate picture of Donald J. Trump. RigidScholar89 ( talk) 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, you're right about this. The last discussion was in March. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This bio is a hit job and is full of misinformation. 2600:4040:B125:2C00:D461:1696:3B78:1485 ( talk) 20:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't most of the essays in the book be considered opinions for our purposes? It's not as if, for example, Trump being the "product of long-term trends in Republican politics and American polarization more broadly" hasn't been mentioned by various opinion writers, many of whom are also academics, in "media sources". Zelizer, BTW, is a CNN political analyst (presumably paid) and a regular guest on NPR (unpaid?), i.e., also a "media source". (I haven't read the book, just looked at the contributors in the table of contents and the description of content and author on Amazon.) Moxy, as Valjean said, what are some of the "negative media" or "tone problems" that need cleaning up? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I learned that from 2016 to 2020, Trump served without money. Why do I see the whatever information Trump's salary in this article ?
In addition, in his term, this is 4 years without new war. Why they didn't mention it ?
113.188.106.56 ( talk) 01:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I hope some will write down about it. This is a clear-cut evidence why Trump is one of the best president in history. Whatever the smearing, I think It still take a little bit of more time for the population to understand completely about Trump.
113.188.106.56 ( talk) 02:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
4 years without new waror new "authorizations of military force" — same as Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon whose articles don't mention it either. He is now collecting (and not donating) $221,000 per year for the rest of his life, and the U.S. taxpayer is funding the rent Trump pays to himself for his use of office space at Mar-a-Lago as well as a budget for staff at that office. Also, you may want to find some better news sources than Facebook. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Many erroneous and untrue statements in this. Can tell the political affiliation of the author! Disgraceful 2600:2B00:970B:6500:F050:2B3A:169D:4F9E ( talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, the format of the lede of the page at the time of this writing [5] does not comply with MOS:LEAD which states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate"; the page has six paragraphs. I tried to fix it [6], but User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted, with the explanation that my edit was "Not an improvement. The first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that, needs to be separate from summary of education and career. His stand-alone, the two impeachments, need to stay in a separate paragraph." I will quote MOS:BEGIN, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic".
Per Space4Time3Continuum2x's own opinion, "the first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that". If there is only one sentence doing that, then even by their standard, we don't have it as a well-composed paragraph in the lede, in contradiction of what MOS:LEAD indicates that there should be. According to MOS:PARA, "single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". Although in the page certainly the single-sentence paragraphs are minimized, there is still the issue that they can inhibit the flow of the text and, although it can denote emphasis, in writing generally paragraphs should consist of more than a single short sentence or be several lines long. I checked other president's pages ( Lincoln, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, and Obama) at the time they were granted at least good article status, and none of them have more than four paragraphs in the lede, although Obama's has a short first paragraph.
My suggestion is to analyze whether it's the best practice to leave the first paragraph as a single-sentence or short paragraph and to copyedit and reform the lede in such a way as to at least comply with having four paragraphs per the standard of MOS:LEAD and don't break with the rest of presidential pages format of the lede. Thinker78 ( talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln (/ˈlɪŋkən/ LINK-ən; February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American lawyer and statesman who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861 until his assassination in 1865. Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy.If we wanted to add something to Trump’s first paragraph, I would support adding the two impeachments, the incitement to insurrection, the false statements, the racist and misogynistic comments and actions, not the bachelor’s degree or working for his father.
Most mobile readers, 70 percent of our viewershipdo? Viewership, as in Nielsen ratings? Quoting from the most recent source (2019) mentioned on the linked Wikimedia draft page:
How good is this data?
It has some limitations:
Missing older browsers (Android browser,chrome < 39, Safari, iOS < 11.3.
Respects “Do Not Track”
Anomalous large amount of missing data on mobile
Doesn’t perfectly capture “reading.” Only measures that the page is visible.(That doesn't capture "reading" at all, just "viewing".)
We collected sampled 0.1% of page views from 2017-11-20 through 2018-10-25
serv[ing] as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contentsper MOS lead section. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
the other discussions, I linked them to give examples of your bad-faith behavior on this talk page. Zaathras ( talk) 20:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
In the Donald Trump page as in any other page all it takes is for a large enough group of biased, like-minded editors to take ownership, quashing any edits that don't reflect their bias.Your words, my friend, and a shining example of a bad-faith personal attack against other editors. Comments like that can lead to you being removed from this topic area, so, tread carefully, and cease the slurs. Now. Zaathras ( talk) 03:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Per
WP:TPG the sole purpose of this talk page is discussing article improvements
|
---|
Personally, I'm sick of the bickering and wish all editors here would re-read WP:Focus on content......... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC) :Thanks for tagging my talk page, and I did not bicker. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
|
Where did you get the information on WP developers' assumptions? infobox appears after the first paragraph despite it being coded before the paragraph
- as a non-coder I’m asking myself why/how it appears after the first paragraph if that isn't specified in the code (if/then or whatever)? Our first sentence does exactly what
MOS Biographies' first sentence says it should do, i.e., "neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable". (Does Wikipedia even need to "hook readers", at
5 billion visitors per month?) I can think of a few things I would add to the first paragraph but I'm pretty sure that there'd be very emphatic objections.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yo, half this is hearsay and debunked. This page needs edited. Mostly biases 75.118.249.80 ( talk) 15:45, 1 July 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)
It’s amazing you can’t edit but your article puts our 45th president, Donald J Trump in a bad light. He is revered as one of the best presidents, if not the best. GDP growth of 3% amongst all the other accomplishments such as NO WARS, NO INFLATION, BORDERS SECURED, ENERGY INDEPENDENT, HBCU’s for blacks, lowest unemployment rate for minorities are but a few of his accomplishments. Your site is why America doesn’t trust internet or its affiliates. Be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:5F3F:546B:79BE:7D23:F9EE:8DD8 ( talk) 13:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
large segment of our societyshould stop watching Fox News and "the Internet" and take a look at the real world every once in a while. You are voicing your personal opinion that we are taking
a totally left wing approach to the whole article. As our FAQ explains, "we are required to report the bad (negative) with the good (positive) – and the neither-bad-nor-good – in rough proportion to what's said in reliable sources, in this case largely major news outlets. If sources are widely critical of Trump, this article must reflect that. They are, so it does. This is Wikipedia policy." There is no point in continuing this discussion if you don’t present reliable sources saying what an outstanding president Trump was. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Get a neutral party to write it. This page was written by someone with a fatal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is embarrassing. Whoever wrote this should be fired. 2A00:1028:D000:3BA:9DEE:54FF:958:5B5E ( talk) 11:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section titled Immigration, please change:
"As president, he frequently described illegal immigration as an "invasion" and conflated immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, though research shows undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans."
to: "As president, he frequently described illegal immigration as an "invasion" and conflated immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, though some research suggests undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens."
Explanation: I request that the last clause be edited to be more in line with that the original USA Today source says. It does not specify "native-born Americans," rather it says "American citizens" (which could include naturalized citizens). I also request that "research" be changed to "some research" as this is in line with the source as well. As well as changing "shows" to "suggests," which is also in line with the source. Also changing "crime rate" to "commit crimes," which is also what the source says. Thanks. LittleCuteSuit ( talk) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
As president, he frequently described illegal immigration as an "invasion" and conflated immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, though a majority of studies have found lower U.S. crime rates among undocumented immigrants than among citizens.
majority of studies. The 2019 article doesn't mention research of crime rates at all. The 2018 article says that
All available national crime statistics show immigrants commit fewer crimes, not more, than those born in the U.S., as does this ABC News fact check:
What available studies do show, however, is that overall, crime rates are lower among immigrant groups than they are among native-born Americans.Both "some research" and "a majority of studies" imply that there are other studies that indicate higher crime rates for immigrants but I don't see that in the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:32, 10 July 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.
Does he qualify? 129.222.139.40 ( talk) 02:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I find this discussion frustrating. Speaking as someone who has called Trump a fascist (though I prefer the more all-encompassing word "authoritarian"), I think it would be entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to label Trump as one, as if it's some kind of objective terminology. Even scholars of fascism have serious disagreements about what the term means and whom it applies to, and the term has lost meaning through overuse as a political slur. marbeh raglaim ( talk) 11:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Do RS call him one? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. -These need to be deleted. Brockdb ( talk) 15:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Well I wasn't involved in any prior discussion and I would like to give the OP the chance to say something that is "actionable". @
Brockdb: could you please identify the single-most one or two concerning bit of text in the article, and why you are concerned about them?
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 15:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Trump made many false and misleading statements—consensus item 49,
Many of his comments and actions—consensus item 30. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
involved in any prior discussion. Not surprisingly, the OP didn't respond to your ping. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
You could have just asked editor Praxidicae about every previous discussion
, you know, AGF.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 17:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
the SPA account name was blue—uh, no? Yeah, I'm done. I assumed that you didn't recognize the two sentences from the lead. Maybe we should un-archive the drive-by trolling of the last few months, put them in a separate section on the Talk page, and just let that section fester and grow. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Has there ever been a US president that didn't make false statements and promises, during their campaigns? An example from Biden's 2020 campaign: $5 minimum wage & election reform, to name a couple. I rarely bother with these discussions on this BLP, anymore. So, I'll leave it up to those that do frequent this BLP's talkpage, as to what should & shouldn't be included. GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I just made some very minor edits (mostly commas and non-breaking spaces with one citation), but I noticed that the opportunity exists to update some of the language to be more gender-neutral (ex: chairperson). I didn't want to just make these changes without input though, so please let me know your thoughts. Apologies if this has already been talked to death! Lindsey40186 ( talk) 00:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I already changed a few chairman to chair; I left Trump's "man" because I didn't want to deal with the fracas of gender neutering Trump, errr, I mean Trump's title. I left "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs". As soon as a woman breaks that ceiling we'll find out what the pentagon does. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Re this, this, this, this, this, this, and this edit. WP didn't just make up arbitrary rules. MOS:JOBTITLES is based on the Chicago Manual of Style. The LA Times explains it like this: "'Civil, military, religious, and professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name," states the Chicago Manual of Style. "Titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name.'"
Mededitor, a veteran editor who doesn’t use his real name on Twitter, mimicked an attitude he has encountered: "But the Regional Manager is an important person — we HAVE to uppercase her job title!"
Owen again: "I've had to explain multiple times that Vice President Bob Smith gets capped but vice president of advancement Bob Smith does not."
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
We capitalise the office in the infobox, prefix or not, because it's not a sentence. See other world leaders' infoboxes. GoodDay ( talk) 06:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
My apologies for reverting you earlier @ BlueShirtz:. I momentarily thought it was you, who made the change without consensus. GoodDay ( talk) 06:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Please, don't lower case "President of the United States" in Donald Trump's infobox. We do that for the article intro, only. An RFC on the infobox matter, was held 'bout a year ago & there was no consensus to lower case for any office holders. Meanwhile, look at the infoboxes of the other US presidents & vice presidents. Not to mention other world leaders. Just asking you, don't put folks through that argument again. But if you really have to? Next time, open up an another RFC on the matter. PS - Can't believe you tried such a thing though, without getting a consensus first. GoodDay ( talk) 06:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
45th President of the United States. It's only an office as long as the person is President of the United States, i.e., currently that's Joe Biden whose infobox ought to say
President of the United Stateswithout the modifier for the duration. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
one could've taken your changebut one shouldn't have as I neither singled out nor suggested. I'm on this BLP proposing that it comply with MOS:JOBTITLES which does not make an exception for infoboxes on former U.S. presidents' pages, nothing more. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
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]
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
It's good to see 'here' & in more recent discussions, that the 'hatting' technique has ceased. But, the struggle does continue, to bring this BLP to NPoV status. Not an easy task, to be sure. GoodDay ( talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
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
I think that through the discussion above, the one thing that was shown, is that the phrase in the lede "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia." is contentious, and thus, my proposal is that it is not to be edited without talkpage consensus, in accordance with the provisions for other sentences of the lede. Fbifriday ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Fbifriday, what are you talking about? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I reverted removing the timeline because I don't think an "unsightly" hatnote is a valid reason to remove it. If that discussion moves it you should adjust it after that. Andrevan @ 22:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Can you add this source to the lead in the historical rankings section? Source. This is the only other scholarly ranking besides CSPAN that was released after his presidency since there is consensus to put in rankings once the presidency has been done. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:13, 10 July 2022 (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 140 | ← | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | → | Archive 150 |
Isn't "University of Pennsylvania" the standard? Just wondering. GuardianH (for some reason, the sign function isn't working for me).
Anythingyouwant, none of the sources say that it was
a challenge, major or otherwise, for the media to distinguish falsehoods from mere falsities. Both words indicate untruths/untrue statements without indicating whether intent to deceive is or isn't involved. Journalists shied away from calling them lies since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive? How can journalists know what’s in Trump’s mind, even when he repeatedly says transparently untrue things
(your WaPo source). Per consensus item 22, we cannot call Trump a liar or call his falsehoods lies. IMO that includes using the definition of lie, i.e., uttering a falsehood with intent to deceive. We shouldn't be using either one of these sentences without a new consensus: His falsehoods (which are intentional as distinguished from falsities which may be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity
(
version Anythingyouwant), His intentional falsehoods (as distinguished from counterfactual statements which might be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity
(
version
SPECIFICO). Also, do we want to get into dictionary definitions?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 15:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
His falsehoods (which are deliberately false) and falsities (which may not be deliberately false) became a distinctive part of his political identitywas challenged, you reinserted it with minor rephrasing 10 hours later, without discussing it on the Talk page per the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES (24 BRD cycle). Way to go! Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Could a presidential statement, no matter how blatantly false, be deemed a "lie" since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive?. That's falsity in the uncountable sense, I believe. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding occasions where this Wikipedia article currently uses the word “falsehood” in Wikipedia’s voice, there are at least five alternatives.
I think the worst options would be the first and the third, because then we would be violating our own rule #22. So I recommend the second, fourth, or fifth alternatives. But if we must choose the first or third, then the third seems much better to me. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The order of the definitions may not mean what you think ... All the senses of a word that are listed are equal, and not in a George-Orwellesque all-words-are-equal-but-some-are-more-equal-than-others sort of way.Merriam Webster. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
We can say he made false statements or uttered falsehoods because RS tell us he did. There also came a point, after long hesitation, where RS started calling him a liar and saying he was telling lies because there was so much information and debunking in existence that he had to have known that what he was saying was not true. He simply doesn't care. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Right, if RS say it so can we. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
We have a whole article detailing the lack of veracity for Trump's statements. The longstanding version should be reinstated. If we want to ADD an explanation about why the media changed their policy, that could be ADDED as good content. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
We'd be better off waiting until he begins his campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. I'm certain there'll be plenty of sourced material to add, by then. GoodDay ( talk) 16:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
If someone ought to know that what they are saying is not true, is that a lie? Major media sources thought so and literally changed their policy and started calling Trump's false statements "lies". WaPo's fact-checkers even had to create a new category of lies because of Trump.
He is part of a rare class of liars who will repeat debunked lies. Normal people don't want to be classed as liars, so they don't repeat a lie when exposed. Trump's tactic is different as he doubles down using Hitler's (his mentor) Big Lie propaganda technique.
I said "rare" but that is no longer true. GOP politicians have adopted his methods for several reasons: he gets away with it, so they hope to do the same; he pressures them to as a loyalty test; they are compromised/blackmailed, so they abandon any sense of honesty. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This whole discussion is pointless. Wikipedia content is based on what Reliable Sources say. It is not based on our interpretation of dictionary definitions. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:17, 30 May 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.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I noticed that in the article you mentioned that Donald Trump was wrong in his claims that the election was stolen, but the recent documentary 2000 Mules showed that in fact Trump was correct in his claim Ragnar Danneskjöld 7 ( talk) 14:15, 8 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.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are two areas that are politically biased conjecture and not fact.
1. "falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."
1a. The claim of electoral fraud is currently being investigated, which is what should be noted, and not that it is false. This is conjecture. The statement that former President Trump "urged supports to march to the Capitol" is misleading, as it is missing context and seeks to paint a politically skewed picture.
2. "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.[1]"
2a. This statement is patently false, and uses a politically biased source to make the claim. The accurate answer is that Trump is a controversial figure, with some ranking him low, and others high, depending on political affiliation and beliefs on his policies.
3. "Trump was slow to address the spread of the disease, initially dismissing the imminent threat and ignoring persistent public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Secretary Azar.[476][477] Instead, throughout January and February he focused on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.[478] "
3a. Again, this is patently false. President Trump at the time attempted to enact a travel ban from countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, but it was deemed 'racist' by Congress and subsequently repealed. Context is missing here.
4. "Trump established the White House Coronavirus Task Force on January 29, 2020.[492] Beginning in mid-March, Trump held a daily task force press conference, joined by medical experts and other administration officials,[493] sometimes disagreeing with them by promoting unproven treatments.[494] Trump was the main speaker at the briefings, where he praised his own response to the pandemic, frequently criticized rival presidential candidate Joe Biden, and denounced the press.[493][495] On March 16, he acknowledged for the first time that the pandemic was not under control and that months of disruption to daily lives and a recession might occur.[496] His repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" and "China virus" to describe COVID-19 drew criticism from health experts.[497][498][499]"
4a. The political skewing here is quite obvious, and Wikipedia must remain apolitical to be a true source of valid information. While these actions occurred, this paragraph was written with clear bias, ignoring the positive aspects of the news conferences regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. There is also no mention whatsoever about the time and resources poured into the creation of the COVID vaccines.
Wikipedia is here to be an medium for factual information, not a politically skewed blog. I review for several academic journals, and I am a Libertarian, but I keep politics out of my writing. This whole article is nothing but a sloppily written political hit piece. Please correct this article (there are many more examples that I did not touch on) to make it apolitical, and add the positive aspects along with the negative to paint a clear and accurate picture of Donald J. Trump. RigidScholar89 ( talk) 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, you're right about this. The last discussion was in March. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This bio is a hit job and is full of misinformation. 2600:4040:B125:2C00:D461:1696:3B78:1485 ( talk) 20:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't most of the essays in the book be considered opinions for our purposes? It's not as if, for example, Trump being the "product of long-term trends in Republican politics and American polarization more broadly" hasn't been mentioned by various opinion writers, many of whom are also academics, in "media sources". Zelizer, BTW, is a CNN political analyst (presumably paid) and a regular guest on NPR (unpaid?), i.e., also a "media source". (I haven't read the book, just looked at the contributors in the table of contents and the description of content and author on Amazon.) Moxy, as Valjean said, what are some of the "negative media" or "tone problems" that need cleaning up? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I learned that from 2016 to 2020, Trump served without money. Why do I see the whatever information Trump's salary in this article ?
In addition, in his term, this is 4 years without new war. Why they didn't mention it ?
113.188.106.56 ( talk) 01:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I hope some will write down about it. This is a clear-cut evidence why Trump is one of the best president in history. Whatever the smearing, I think It still take a little bit of more time for the population to understand completely about Trump.
113.188.106.56 ( talk) 02:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
4 years without new waror new "authorizations of military force" — same as Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon whose articles don't mention it either. He is now collecting (and not donating) $221,000 per year for the rest of his life, and the U.S. taxpayer is funding the rent Trump pays to himself for his use of office space at Mar-a-Lago as well as a budget for staff at that office. Also, you may want to find some better news sources than Facebook. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Many erroneous and untrue statements in this. Can tell the political affiliation of the author! Disgraceful 2600:2B00:970B:6500:F050:2B3A:169D:4F9E ( talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, the format of the lede of the page at the time of this writing [5] does not comply with MOS:LEAD which states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate"; the page has six paragraphs. I tried to fix it [6], but User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted, with the explanation that my edit was "Not an improvement. The first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that, needs to be separate from summary of education and career. His stand-alone, the two impeachments, need to stay in a separate paragraph." I will quote MOS:BEGIN, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic".
Per Space4Time3Continuum2x's own opinion, "the first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that". If there is only one sentence doing that, then even by their standard, we don't have it as a well-composed paragraph in the lede, in contradiction of what MOS:LEAD indicates that there should be. According to MOS:PARA, "single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". Although in the page certainly the single-sentence paragraphs are minimized, there is still the issue that they can inhibit the flow of the text and, although it can denote emphasis, in writing generally paragraphs should consist of more than a single short sentence or be several lines long. I checked other president's pages ( Lincoln, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, and Obama) at the time they were granted at least good article status, and none of them have more than four paragraphs in the lede, although Obama's has a short first paragraph.
My suggestion is to analyze whether it's the best practice to leave the first paragraph as a single-sentence or short paragraph and to copyedit and reform the lede in such a way as to at least comply with having four paragraphs per the standard of MOS:LEAD and don't break with the rest of presidential pages format of the lede. Thinker78 ( talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln (/ˈlɪŋkən/ LINK-ən; February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American lawyer and statesman who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861 until his assassination in 1865. Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy.If we wanted to add something to Trump’s first paragraph, I would support adding the two impeachments, the incitement to insurrection, the false statements, the racist and misogynistic comments and actions, not the bachelor’s degree or working for his father.
Most mobile readers, 70 percent of our viewershipdo? Viewership, as in Nielsen ratings? Quoting from the most recent source (2019) mentioned on the linked Wikimedia draft page:
How good is this data?
It has some limitations:
Missing older browsers (Android browser,chrome < 39, Safari, iOS < 11.3.
Respects “Do Not Track”
Anomalous large amount of missing data on mobile
Doesn’t perfectly capture “reading.” Only measures that the page is visible.(That doesn't capture "reading" at all, just "viewing".)
We collected sampled 0.1% of page views from 2017-11-20 through 2018-10-25
serv[ing] as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contentsper MOS lead section. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
the other discussions, I linked them to give examples of your bad-faith behavior on this talk page. Zaathras ( talk) 20:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
In the Donald Trump page as in any other page all it takes is for a large enough group of biased, like-minded editors to take ownership, quashing any edits that don't reflect their bias.Your words, my friend, and a shining example of a bad-faith personal attack against other editors. Comments like that can lead to you being removed from this topic area, so, tread carefully, and cease the slurs. Now. Zaathras ( talk) 03:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Per
WP:TPG the sole purpose of this talk page is discussing article improvements
|
---|
Personally, I'm sick of the bickering and wish all editors here would re-read WP:Focus on content......... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC) :Thanks for tagging my talk page, and I did not bicker. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
|
Where did you get the information on WP developers' assumptions? infobox appears after the first paragraph despite it being coded before the paragraph
- as a non-coder I’m asking myself why/how it appears after the first paragraph if that isn't specified in the code (if/then or whatever)? Our first sentence does exactly what
MOS Biographies' first sentence says it should do, i.e., "neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable". (Does Wikipedia even need to "hook readers", at
5 billion visitors per month?) I can think of a few things I would add to the first paragraph but I'm pretty sure that there'd be very emphatic objections.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yo, half this is hearsay and debunked. This page needs edited. Mostly biases 75.118.249.80 ( talk) 15:45, 1 July 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)
It’s amazing you can’t edit but your article puts our 45th president, Donald J Trump in a bad light. He is revered as one of the best presidents, if not the best. GDP growth of 3% amongst all the other accomplishments such as NO WARS, NO INFLATION, BORDERS SECURED, ENERGY INDEPENDENT, HBCU’s for blacks, lowest unemployment rate for minorities are but a few of his accomplishments. Your site is why America doesn’t trust internet or its affiliates. Be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:5F3F:546B:79BE:7D23:F9EE:8DD8 ( talk) 13:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
large segment of our societyshould stop watching Fox News and "the Internet" and take a look at the real world every once in a while. You are voicing your personal opinion that we are taking
a totally left wing approach to the whole article. As our FAQ explains, "we are required to report the bad (negative) with the good (positive) – and the neither-bad-nor-good – in rough proportion to what's said in reliable sources, in this case largely major news outlets. If sources are widely critical of Trump, this article must reflect that. They are, so it does. This is Wikipedia policy." There is no point in continuing this discussion if you don’t present reliable sources saying what an outstanding president Trump was. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Get a neutral party to write it. This page was written by someone with a fatal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is embarrassing. Whoever wrote this should be fired. 2A00:1028:D000:3BA:9DEE:54FF:958:5B5E ( talk) 11:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section titled Immigration, please change:
"As president, he frequently described illegal immigration as an "invasion" and conflated immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, though research shows undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans."
to: "As president, he frequently described illegal immigration as an "invasion" and conflated immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, though some research suggests undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens."
Explanation: I request that the last clause be edited to be more in line with that the original USA Today source says. It does not specify "native-born Americans," rather it says "American citizens" (which could include naturalized citizens). I also request that "research" be changed to "some research" as this is in line with the source as well. As well as changing "shows" to "suggests," which is also in line with the source. Also changing "crime rate" to "commit crimes," which is also what the source says. Thanks. LittleCuteSuit ( talk) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
As president, he frequently described illegal immigration as an "invasion" and conflated immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, though a majority of studies have found lower U.S. crime rates among undocumented immigrants than among citizens.
majority of studies. The 2019 article doesn't mention research of crime rates at all. The 2018 article says that
All available national crime statistics show immigrants commit fewer crimes, not more, than those born in the U.S., as does this ABC News fact check:
What available studies do show, however, is that overall, crime rates are lower among immigrant groups than they are among native-born Americans.Both "some research" and "a majority of studies" imply that there are other studies that indicate higher crime rates for immigrants but I don't see that in the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:32, 10 July 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.
Does he qualify? 129.222.139.40 ( talk) 02:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I find this discussion frustrating. Speaking as someone who has called Trump a fascist (though I prefer the more all-encompassing word "authoritarian"), I think it would be entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to label Trump as one, as if it's some kind of objective terminology. Even scholars of fascism have serious disagreements about what the term means and whom it applies to, and the term has lost meaning through overuse as a political slur. marbeh raglaim ( talk) 11:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Do RS call him one? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. -These need to be deleted. Brockdb ( talk) 15:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Well I wasn't involved in any prior discussion and I would like to give the OP the chance to say something that is "actionable". @
Brockdb: could you please identify the single-most one or two concerning bit of text in the article, and why you are concerned about them?
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 15:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Trump made many false and misleading statements—consensus item 49,
Many of his comments and actions—consensus item 30. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
involved in any prior discussion. Not surprisingly, the OP didn't respond to your ping. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
You could have just asked editor Praxidicae about every previous discussion
, you know, AGF.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 17:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
the SPA account name was blue—uh, no? Yeah, I'm done. I assumed that you didn't recognize the two sentences from the lead. Maybe we should un-archive the drive-by trolling of the last few months, put them in a separate section on the Talk page, and just let that section fester and grow. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Has there ever been a US president that didn't make false statements and promises, during their campaigns? An example from Biden's 2020 campaign: $5 minimum wage & election reform, to name a couple. I rarely bother with these discussions on this BLP, anymore. So, I'll leave it up to those that do frequent this BLP's talkpage, as to what should & shouldn't be included. GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I just made some very minor edits (mostly commas and non-breaking spaces with one citation), but I noticed that the opportunity exists to update some of the language to be more gender-neutral (ex: chairperson). I didn't want to just make these changes without input though, so please let me know your thoughts. Apologies if this has already been talked to death! Lindsey40186 ( talk) 00:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I already changed a few chairman to chair; I left Trump's "man" because I didn't want to deal with the fracas of gender neutering Trump, errr, I mean Trump's title. I left "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs". As soon as a woman breaks that ceiling we'll find out what the pentagon does. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Re this, this, this, this, this, this, and this edit. WP didn't just make up arbitrary rules. MOS:JOBTITLES is based on the Chicago Manual of Style. The LA Times explains it like this: "'Civil, military, religious, and professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name," states the Chicago Manual of Style. "Titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name.'"
Mededitor, a veteran editor who doesn’t use his real name on Twitter, mimicked an attitude he has encountered: "But the Regional Manager is an important person — we HAVE to uppercase her job title!"
Owen again: "I've had to explain multiple times that Vice President Bob Smith gets capped but vice president of advancement Bob Smith does not."
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
We capitalise the office in the infobox, prefix or not, because it's not a sentence. See other world leaders' infoboxes. GoodDay ( talk) 06:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
My apologies for reverting you earlier @ BlueShirtz:. I momentarily thought it was you, who made the change without consensus. GoodDay ( talk) 06:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Please, don't lower case "President of the United States" in Donald Trump's infobox. We do that for the article intro, only. An RFC on the infobox matter, was held 'bout a year ago & there was no consensus to lower case for any office holders. Meanwhile, look at the infoboxes of the other US presidents & vice presidents. Not to mention other world leaders. Just asking you, don't put folks through that argument again. But if you really have to? Next time, open up an another RFC on the matter. PS - Can't believe you tried such a thing though, without getting a consensus first. GoodDay ( talk) 06:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
45th President of the United States. It's only an office as long as the person is President of the United States, i.e., currently that's Joe Biden whose infobox ought to say
President of the United Stateswithout the modifier for the duration. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
one could've taken your changebut one shouldn't have as I neither singled out nor suggested. I'm on this BLP proposing that it comply with MOS:JOBTITLES which does not make an exception for infoboxes on former U.S. presidents' pages, nothing more. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
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]
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
It's good to see 'here' & in more recent discussions, that the 'hatting' technique has ceased. But, the struggle does continue, to bring this BLP to NPoV status. Not an easy task, to be sure. GoodDay ( talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
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
I think that through the discussion above, the one thing that was shown, is that the phrase in the lede "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia." is contentious, and thus, my proposal is that it is not to be edited without talkpage consensus, in accordance with the provisions for other sentences of the lede. Fbifriday ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Fbifriday, what are you talking about? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I reverted removing the timeline because I don't think an "unsightly" hatnote is a valid reason to remove it. If that discussion moves it you should adjust it after that. Andrevan @ 22:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Can you add this source to the lead in the historical rankings section? Source. This is the only other scholarly ranking besides CSPAN that was released after his presidency since there is consensus to put in rankings once the presidency has been done. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)