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 145 | ← | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | → | Archive 155 |
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.
Trump has been labeled as a domestic terrorist by a dozen or so high ranking, current and former law enforcement and US government employees. For example, Republican former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage described him as a domestic terrorist in 2021, while more recently, Democrat Juliette Kayyem, formerly of the United States Department of Homeland Security, also referred to Trump in this way. Should this be covered in this biography? Viriditas ( talk) 02:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian and ABC News have identified more than 50 "criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault." [1] According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts. [2] In addition to these threats, Reuters has documented 102 threats of death or violence received by more than 40 election officials, workers and their relatives in eight of the most contested battleground states in the 2020 US presidential contest." [3]
References
sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." –– FormalDude (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source.
its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. FrederalBacon ( talk) 06:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
substantial new details about former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 electionbut it doesn't call him a terrorist. Levivich ( talk) 16:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
It [Trump being a terrorist] is the conclusion of every major national security analysis since January 2021—link it, then. Provide good sources. I'm not saying that statement isn't true, but, rather, the lack of good, quality sourcing by the people wanting to make the change, and then the shifting of the burden of actualy finding that evidence (which, apparently, is plentiful enough that it deserves coverage in this article, and which also is not being linked for whatever reason despite the fact that it is, apparently, as I already said, plentiful enough to deserve coverage in this article) onto others, just doesn't seem fair.
after all, one of CPAC’s afternoon panels was titled “We Are All Domestic Terrorists.” One of its participants, Texas state board of education candidate Julie Pickren of Houston, began by claiming the title was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. “Nobody in this room is a domestic terrorist,” she assured the thousand or so right-wing activists in the Hilton Anatole’s Trinity Ballroom.
According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts
make sure... that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy.(emphasis mine)
Oppose This is the same Richard Armitage who falsely stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which helped persuade the U.S. to enter a catastrophic war. He also "inadvertently" leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, destroying her career. Viriditas, why do you think he is credible source? TFD ( talk) 22:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Is this RFC worthy? If so, what would the RFC say? Cessaune ( talk) 00:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I know you will just move the goalposts each and every time and play the no true Scotsman card.,
You’re confused.,
The honest truth is that it won’t matter how many sources I provide, there is no source you will accept. Just trying to save you some time.,
Did you even read this discussion?,
A truly bizarre comment.,
Have you considered that these emotionally-laden observations extend only as far as yourself?I’d suggest you reevaluate your approach to discussion if you truly see no vitriol in these statements. Anon0098 ( talk) 02:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The anarchy of society condensed into something almost organically human, a website of little happiness and lots of pain that derives it powers not from its greatness but from its weakness.Or something like that. That is the whole point of Wikipedia. It is an experiment, an early Internet experiment, in fact, one of the greatest experiments of all time. Humans have created an entire encyclopedia based on "the innate need that all nerds have to correct others", as my friend affectionally put it. And as such, we aren't all that different. We may be Trump supporters or pineapple-on-pizza haters or vegans or lesbians or cat lovers or professional handball players. We may have two kids or no kids or be an only child or be one of thirteen or be old or young or skinny or fat or Chinese or English or Nigerian, but it doesn't matter. Our differences create an equilibrium, the same tentative equilibrium that defines all of Wikipedia. We are not looking to push our point-of-view, or to deliberately inflame, or to disrupt, though these things may happen. We are simply seeking to make others understand us, and a lot of non-verbal explanation is obscured in online discussion, which creates a lot of problems. Believe me, we aren't looking to shame or embarass or annoy, though we are all human and it happens. It happens and it isn't fun when it does. Yet, we come back, we return to the screen, again and again and again. Why? Why do we choose to take time out of our day to edit a website that gives us nothing in return? Why?
any way bots or sanctions could be set up to protect the introductory body/faq in the talk page? seems like a pretty silly thing to leave to the whims of internet trolls 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has made a negative, politically biased view of trump 2600:1017:B103:C5B4:9D50:B71A:AEC4:67DA ( talk) 10:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
One of the first paragraphs says "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." With no sources or references. This is a clear statement of bias Croazz ( talk) 19:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
On 13 October, 2022 Trump was subpoenaed by the House Select Committee Investigation The January 6th Capital Attack I feel this should be added to Post Presidency Investigations 2600:1004:B09C:48CB:21DF:6FEA:66E4:477F ( talk) 21:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic.
Does this require a citation, as according to consensus item 58?
Cessaune (
talk) 16:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
look like it was written by and for idiots, Khajidha. Lots of articles cite in the lead, some extensively. Just press the random article button and check for yourself. It's very commonplace. And he is a notable BLP, so I think the citation is deserved. Cessaune ( talk) 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
the necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
Please see current consensus, item 49, for the presence of the sentence in the lead and it’s wording. The two RfCs that lead to the inclusion of the material in the lead and its current wording are
Proposed shortening of sentence and
Should false or misleading statements be mentioned in lead. There’s an entire
Racial views section in the body and a Wikilink to
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump in the lead sentence - not easy to overlook. Bob, as for the
WP:SYNTH, please point out the improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research
. Summing up dozens of sources saying he’s racist/made racist remarks/was critized as having made racist remarks with made many false and misleading statements
isn’t synthesis.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 09:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC) I forgot to mention the mysogyny part. That's consensus item 51, based on
this and
this discussion. There's also
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and, as Khajidha already pointed out, the
Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct section in the body.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 15:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Can you point it out to me? Cessaune ( talk) 02:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
in which case use in-text attribution. Cessaune ( talk) 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.So based on those two guidelines, wouldn't we put a citation in the lead and in the body? Cessaune ( talk) 17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that there will be a citation in the lead for this item. Since this is a biased article which has little chance of being remedied, maybe the lack of citations in the lead is for the best because it adds to the appearance of bias and readers can be alerted to that by just looking at the lead. Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As I see it, we should be either all in or all out on this. We should either cite nothing in the lead or throw out the doctrine completely; there is no useful middle ground.
Adding a few citations to the lead would merely increase expectations for the rest. It's misguided to believe a few citations would reduce the number of complaints. "If X is cited, why aren't Y and Z?" ... "Oh, I see you're now citing Y and Z. Thank you. If X, Y, and Z are cited, why aren't A and B?" ... without end. Anything remotely negative will be controversial to many readers, and there is nothing we can do about that. Anything not negative enough will be controversial to many other readers, and there is nothing we can do about that. Trump is controversial. I think it's generally a bad strategy to try to placate readers who don't know how Wikipedia works.
Consider adding something about this in the FAQ? That wouldn't reduce the number of complaints since nobody reads the FAQ before complaining, but it might facilitate the responses to the complaints.
A much better solution would be a permanent tag at the top of the article, but for some reason I don't see that happening. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 ( talk) 20:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The sentence implies that Trump is a racist and misogynistic. Bob K31416 ( talk) 04:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. FormalDude, your and Cessaune's argument seems to be that you think it is but some people might argue that it isn't. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
"About half of registered voters believe President Trump is racist, according to a new national poll released Tuesday, which showed voters are sharply divided along partisan lines on the question." [5] "White voters are divided as 46 percent say he is racist and 50 percent say he is not, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds. Trump is racist black voters say 80 - 11 percent and Hispanic voters say 55 - 44 percent. Men say 55 - 41 percent that Trump is not racist. Women say 59 - 36 percent he is racist." [6] Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Since the sentence implies that Trump is a racist, and about half of registered voters believe Trump is not a racist, the sentence is contentious and should have a citation, according to consensus item 58 and MOS:LEADCITE. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll just make a closing remark and leave it at that.Betcha 12 bitcoin it'll turn out you don't just leave it at that.
Existing Text
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. "
Proposed Text
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses, notably with 65% of the tax savings going to the top 20% of income earners and adding an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years.
[1]
[2] The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act."
Jrpotts (
talk) 12:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes predominantly for businesses and individuals in the upper 20% of earners. The legislation was initiated by his cabinet and was projected to add $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years, partly due to its repeal of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act.[1][2]"
SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Khajidha, I meant to use to it in the section for "businessman" but it's just as suitable for "politician" — those conflicts of interest, making the Secret Service pay through the nose for rent on his properties while protecting him, etc. On second thought, $$ would be even better. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Very oddly, we don't have them, and why shouldn't we? The latest attempt was killed immediately. Somewhat related, we do have a Bibliography of Donald Trump article which is linked to from the "Media career" section. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
From section COVID-19 pandemic > Initial response
References
From the source for the above item,
So according to the source used in this Wikipedia article, Trump did not claim that a vaccine was months away but asked about it. Also, when the vaccine came out 9 months later on Dec 11, 2020, Dr. Fauci said that he had no idea it would come out so fast. [10]
Later in the source there is,
Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Czello, where does the source say "less than year", as you say in your edit summary? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
“All right, so you’re talking within a year,” Trump said moments later. “A year to a year and a half,” interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents.— Czello 12:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
continued to claim that a vaccine would be available within months? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article was changed and currently there is, [11]
References
The fact is that the vaccine came out less than a year later (9 months) on Dec 11, 2020, and the first deliveries were Dec 14. [12] [13] So the Wikipedia article makes a false implication. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
"I've heard very quick numbers — a matter of months — and I've heard pretty much a year would be an outside number. So I think that's not a bad — that's not a bad range. But if you're talking about three to four months, in a couple of cases, and a year in other cases — wouldn't you say, doctor, would that be about right?" President Trump, coronavirus roundtable meeting, March 2, 2020( WaPo),
President Donald Trump has suggested multiple times that a coronavirus vaccine could come within months( NBC). Further down in the Politico article cited by you:
in the meantime, he’s sharing some inaccurate theories and asking confounding questions about how a vaccine might work, all while the cameras roll.Anyway, I don't know what you're complaining about when I should be the one who's complaining. The text now says that he
continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year awaywhen he kept going back to "months, isn't that about right". Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Recapitulating what's going on: It's an application of Valjean's idea to eliminate any perceived need for lead cites by providing section references in the lead linking to the section in the body, with the refcites and the wikilinks to other articles, that's summarized by the sentence(s) in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Contrary to my initial concern on the 12th, it is in fact significantly less clutter than a bunch of citations. It looks remarkably and unexpectedly clean, illustrating one of the reasons to Just Do It. It's a major improvement to the article in multiple ways, and I'm proud of us. Can't wait to see this adopted at other articles after we have a template.
On the subject of the template, I think some consideration of the template name is in order. "Leadref" has worked for purposes of discussion, but these are not refs; rather, they are an alternative to refs in the lead. That said, I can't think of anything better at the moment. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 ( talk) 00:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Lead section anchors. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
{{lsl|First impeachment}}
. If an editor doesn't use them enough to remember the somewhat cryptic template name, they can simply look at existing examples. There is plenty of precedent for acronym template names, such as {{
pb}}
for paragraph break or {{
tl}}
for template link. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)
161.97.225.237 (
talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
Paragraph break}}
and {{
Template link}}
, respectively, with redirects for the acronyms. So our template name could be "Lead section link", with an "lsl" redirect, but the long form would be rarely or never used. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)
161.97.225.237 (
talk) 02:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Since " section links are all cross-references to targets, i.e., page name/label of another article, section heading in another article, and section heading in the same article respectively," can't we call these something like "lead to section links" or "lead section links"? The only difference is that we use a section/pilcrow/paragraph symbol rather than a hashtag, and it's strictly for the local article. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Upon further reflection:
If one put a {{
section link}}
in a lead (which I've seen happen occasionally), that would be a lead section link, no? To avoid that, maybe "lead basis section" or something equally unique?
I actually like "lead basis section"—(1) it better reflects the purpose of the thing, and (2) the lead is formally called the "lead section" (
WP:LEAD)—but {{
lbs}}
already exists. For the redirect, we'd have to use "lbsect" or something (I don't recommend "leadbs" ;)).
Maybe I'm overthinking this a little, as the name is somewhat arbitrary; {{xyz|First impeachment}}
would work equally well since there's no need to memorize the name. But it's not arbitrary enough to call it a ref or an anchor, since that would be clearly incorrect. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)
161.97.225.237 (
talk) 11:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Very oddly, we don't have them, and why shouldn't we? The latest attempt was killed immediately. Somewhat related, we do have a Bibliography of Donald Trump article which is linked to from the "Media career" section. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
From section COVID-19 pandemic > Initial response
References
From the source for the above item,
So according to the source used in this Wikipedia article, Trump did not claim that a vaccine was months away but asked about it. Also, when the vaccine came out 9 months later on Dec 11, 2020, Dr. Fauci said that he had no idea it would come out so fast. [14]
Later in the source there is,
Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Czello, where does the source say "less than year", as you say in your edit summary? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
“All right, so you’re talking within a year,” Trump said moments later. “A year to a year and a half,” interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents.— Czello 12:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
continued to claim that a vaccine would be available within months? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article was changed and currently there is, [15]
References
The fact is that the vaccine came out less than a year later (9 months) on Dec 11, 2020, and the first deliveries were Dec 14. [16] [17] So the Wikipedia article makes a false implication. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
"I've heard very quick numbers — a matter of months — and I've heard pretty much a year would be an outside number. So I think that's not a bad — that's not a bad range. But if you're talking about three to four months, in a couple of cases, and a year in other cases — wouldn't you say, doctor, would that be about right?" President Trump, coronavirus roundtable meeting, March 2, 2020( WaPo),
President Donald Trump has suggested multiple times that a coronavirus vaccine could come within months( NBC). Further down in the Politico article cited by you:
in the meantime, he’s sharing some inaccurate theories and asking confounding questions about how a vaccine might work, all while the cameras roll.Anyway, I don't know what you're complaining about when I should be the one who's complaining. The text now says that he
continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year awaywhen he kept going back to "months, isn't that about right". Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I added two books to the Trump media template but they are not shown in the navbox at the bottom of the article. Did I do that wrong, or do I need do something else? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Valjean, I shortened
neither served in the military nor held any government office prior to becoming president to "
neither served in the military nor held any government office prior to becoming president" because it's just so much blue. Will the shorter link really confuse any reader? I also think the two sentences at the beginning of the second paragraph were better: Trump graduated from the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a
bachelor's degree in 1968. He became president of his father's real estate business in 1971 and renamed it
The Trump Organization.
There's a distinct break between the 1968 graduation and the 1971 real estate promotion. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but using the participle phrase "renaming it" seems to infer that he became president of the company by renaming it.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 20:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of his education from the lead. [18] That's a basic biographical fact, almost as basic as date and place of birth. It was part of the <20% of the lead not about his presidency, which is well covered in multiple other articles. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 ( talk) 17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
t@lk 20:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
May we please delete those little squiggly (which link to sections of this very BLP) things out of this BLPs content. They're scattered all over the page & don't look good. GoodDay ( talk) 01:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
BOLD does not require an RfC. This was carefully implemented by a group of very experienced editors. BLP is not an issue as this actually ensures BLP better than the current practice of avoiding refs in the lead, refs that are much more disturbing to the eye than the squigglies.
This ties the lead to the exact sections with the refs, unlike our current leads. It leaves a much cleaner lead. Of course, now that you are focused on the squigglies, you can't "not see" them, but please try. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
optical distraction, IMO. The "squigglies" have a Wikipedia page and several names: section sign, silcrow, section symbol, and section mark. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: Considering that this had fervent and almost unanimous support at this article, including some of its most experienced and competent editors, your starting an RfC unilaterally, without even discussing it first, was improper and irresponsible. This could not be more clear at WP:RFCBEFORE; I suggest you read it.
Your calling the section signs "squigglies", alone, shows your lack of understanding of the concept, and it's absurd to say they look worse or are more distracting than citation numbers when it's one character versus three to five.
That was a knee-jerk and very misguided action on your part, and you have done a disservice to the project. Whether it will ultimately kill this major progress remains to be seen. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 ( talk) 09:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Another concern. Those changes, directs a reader to sections within the article. This can be initially confusing, as (for myself), I first thought I was directed to different (though related) articles. GoodDay ( talk) 09:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
the time to present that concern has passed.The time to present the concern is now. As I said, not everyone jumps to the talk page. Not everyone (basically no one) was aware of this change. Now they see it, now they don't agree with it, now they come here. If, for example, we had created an RfC, it might be different, but to expect people to have been aware of a relatively short-lived talk page discussion, and then to say that since they weren't aware of it, their opinion isn't valid, seems unfair in my eyes. Cessaune ( talk) 18:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
the time to present that concern has passed, but consensus can change at any time. If a wide variety of editors agree with the change that's fine, but it doesn't appear this was reviewed by enough editors to reach that standard. Nemov ( talk) 18:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
People who wouldn't normally look at the talk page saw the lead and were like "what the &#$% is this cursed dollar sign thing" and came here.-- Except that actually, that is not what happened. Our two dissents come from editors who are watching this article all the time and who have separate but related concerns with NPOV and what they consider mainstream sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
optical distractions. But how long will it be before someone reverts the page to that former state or editors start adding wikilinks to one of the 1001 DT subpages or random WP pages for words that belong in a dictionary rather than in an encyclopedia, with the argument that this is how it’s been always done and/or this is how it’s done on other pages? Leaves no room for improvement or evolution. Adding the section signs wasn’t done surreptitiously in the dead of night. There was a lengthy discussion involving seven editors over two days, a demonstration of what the change would look like, and a total of three days when the links were placed, targeting the appropriate body sections. Please, take a look at the lead before, during (1), during (2), and after. Signing with four squiggles (enough with the squigglies, already), Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
At a time of Valjean's choosing, Val has agreed to open an RFC on the proposed changes, at WP:Village Pump (proposals). -- GoodDay ( talk) 21:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
If this has reached a stalemate, it seems like it has to me, is a RfC needed here? Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 04:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This was brought up before but ultimately got swallowed by the "is Trump a terrorist" thread...
I don't like this sentence: He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.
After reading the sources, is seems like they talk about all these things Trump should have done without actually commenting on the political practicality of it, the economic praticality. Trump probably should've reacted faster, but who's to say he reacted slowly? How do we even define slowly? This is why I want to change the sentence to: His response to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was often criticized, as he contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.
(I would get rid of the ignored part, as ignoring a recommendation is the same thing as contradicting it, right?)
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/04/16/trumps-handling-of-coronavirus-outbreak/
Cessaune (
talk) 03:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was often characterized as slowwould fit better, if nothing at all. Cessaune ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
His response to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was often criticized, as he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.Cessaune ( talk) 02:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
His response to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was [insert adjective, widely?] condemned by both the media and the public, as he often downplayed or dismissed the danger of the virus, ignored and contradicted recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.Cessaune ( talk) 04:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
In this rule, you say about verifiability, not truth (?)! But why don't you follow that?
You have said Trump lost but falsely claimed victory or something like that? Why falsely? how do you know the Truth? We know truth only with Jesus our LORD! On wikipedia, you quote things! How did you compute that Trump is right or wrong? At least quote one decisive court decision there! Thanx! 88.155.31.51 ( talk) 17:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Lets not bait users or attack their beliefs. wp:npa applies to everyone. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
What is dimadick's historicity? It's not in need, you see 88.155.31.51 ( talk) 18:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Re [19] — It was a matter of judgement. I thought that the part removed from the lead was a digression and didn't read well. Here's what it looked like after the trim,
Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Since the RS [20] supports lost, would the following work?
Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
In the lead there is,
I don't think this should be in the lead because it is mainly about Russia's activities: "established that Russia interfered" "did not establish that members of the campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia". Bob K31416 ( talk) 01:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The item occurs in the third paragraph of the lead. Here are the subjects of the sentences in the paragraph along with the item under discussion.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.This is more focused on what the investigation found about Trump rather than unduly discussing what Russia did. What Russia did without evidence Trump was involved surely is undue in this lead. This article is about Trump not Russia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 15:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaignSpace4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)but did not establish that members of the campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia.
I removed the second clause - I counted six editors in favor, two supporting removing the entire sentence, and two supporting keeping the entire sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we can continue much of this discussion below:
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would support Wikipedia but you are not fair in your treatment of Trump. You also censor conservatives. You are too bias to deserve support. By the way I don’t like Trump either. 136.239.97.247 ( talk) 02:47, 14 November 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.
Saying Trump was one of the worst presidents in US history, even while backed by sources is still a matter of opinion. What one expert believes is hardly a precedent for how Trump may be viewed by the country as a whole, especially considering how he may be viewed in the future in context with other presidential actions. I respectfully believe the line should be removed for its opinionated and frankly, rather combative content. 2001:44C8:428E:C2AF:38B1:F56A:84AF:483D ( talk) 10:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead section refs (leadrefs) development before a later discussion at the Village Pump. Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In April, as an alternative to citations, I replaced some of the links in the lead with links to the respective body sections and got reverted pronto. One of the arguments at the time was that "readers would probably expect to be taken to another article entirely." How do we know that? Has there been a poll, not to mention a reliable poll, of readers’ expectations? I don’t remember what I expected — other than more info — when clicking on an inline link before I started editing on WP. (Also, quite a few of the articles on Trump have a quality problem.) Another argument was not wanting "people confused if sometimes they click a link and it goes to another article, and other times they click a link and just jump around in the same article." Are WP readers unfamiliar with the revert arrow in their browsers?
MOS is style, not policy (It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
) And we shouldn’t presume that WP readers are easily confused or unfamiliar with the revert arrow of their browsers, i.e., less competent than us genius editors. In a lead and an article of this size, I think the lead should be a summary of article content without citations or inline links to other articles - want more info, look at the table of contents and/or click on the inline link to read the section in the body with the citations and the links to other articles (yeah, when pigs fly). The lead, not just in this article, seems to be turning into an article in its own right.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 16:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
<sup>[[#First impeachment|§ he was impeached]]</sup>
. Is this the clickable section reference
Valjean’s
proposal is referring to: he was impeached<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
? I’m not quite clear on the concept of where to add the symbol. The sentence in the example has six links to other pages (and I just noticed that two are
MOS:SOB). The two linking to "event" pages are no problem but what about the other four? "Abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are also mentioned in
First impeachment, of course, so the links could be located there, but what about Biden and the House of Representatives? (The specific charges could also be replaced by "two charges", IMO.)
pressured Ukraine to investigate<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
Biden in 2019, he was impeached<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
by the
House of Representatives for abuse of power<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
and obstruction of Congress<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
in December.Has this format been used in any other live article yet? Zaathras ( talk) 13:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
An important concept to make this work best is my belief in a tight/mirrored connection between each part of the lead and each section in the body, IOW mirroring the ORDER each appears in the body. The lead should mirror the body, also in the order in which things are mentioned. Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section describes this. This concept IS NOT an absolute requirement for using leadrefs. I mention this just as an FYI. My essay deals with much more than just the lead or just leadrefs. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, groundbreakers. Is that how things should work, though? I'd think a new referencing system would start somewhere at the Village Pump rather than an article talk page that is only frequented by a handful of politics-oriented editors. There's also the "why" to consider, is this truly to inform the reader, or assuage an even tinier handful of gadflies who want every Trump-critical thing in the lede referenced? Zaathras ( talk)
Readers should be steered to our body first, and only then to other articles if they want even more detail.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I
did the deed, per Just add a few without the template and see if it's accepted
. What's the worst than can happen? I get reverted, and it's not as if that would be a new experience.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 18:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
For goodness sake folks. Don't re-add those again. They're visually distracting. At least open an RFC on it, rather then making such big changes. GoodDay ( talk) 01:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Editing to keep open - status unclear, to be continued? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:06, 2 November 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 145 | ← | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | → | Archive 155 |
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.
Trump has been labeled as a domestic terrorist by a dozen or so high ranking, current and former law enforcement and US government employees. For example, Republican former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage described him as a domestic terrorist in 2021, while more recently, Democrat Juliette Kayyem, formerly of the United States Department of Homeland Security, also referred to Trump in this way. Should this be covered in this biography? Viriditas ( talk) 02:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian and ABC News have identified more than 50 "criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault." [1] According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts. [2] In addition to these threats, Reuters has documented 102 threats of death or violence received by more than 40 election officials, workers and their relatives in eight of the most contested battleground states in the 2020 US presidential contest." [3]
References
sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." –– FormalDude (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source.
its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. FrederalBacon ( talk) 06:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
substantial new details about former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 electionbut it doesn't call him a terrorist. Levivich ( talk) 16:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
It [Trump being a terrorist] is the conclusion of every major national security analysis since January 2021—link it, then. Provide good sources. I'm not saying that statement isn't true, but, rather, the lack of good, quality sourcing by the people wanting to make the change, and then the shifting of the burden of actualy finding that evidence (which, apparently, is plentiful enough that it deserves coverage in this article, and which also is not being linked for whatever reason despite the fact that it is, apparently, as I already said, plentiful enough to deserve coverage in this article) onto others, just doesn't seem fair.
after all, one of CPAC’s afternoon panels was titled “We Are All Domestic Terrorists.” One of its participants, Texas state board of education candidate Julie Pickren of Houston, began by claiming the title was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. “Nobody in this room is a domestic terrorist,” she assured the thousand or so right-wing activists in the Hilton Anatole’s Trinity Ballroom.
According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts
make sure... that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy.(emphasis mine)
Oppose This is the same Richard Armitage who falsely stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which helped persuade the U.S. to enter a catastrophic war. He also "inadvertently" leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, destroying her career. Viriditas, why do you think he is credible source? TFD ( talk) 22:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Is this RFC worthy? If so, what would the RFC say? Cessaune ( talk) 00:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I know you will just move the goalposts each and every time and play the no true Scotsman card.,
You’re confused.,
The honest truth is that it won’t matter how many sources I provide, there is no source you will accept. Just trying to save you some time.,
Did you even read this discussion?,
A truly bizarre comment.,
Have you considered that these emotionally-laden observations extend only as far as yourself?I’d suggest you reevaluate your approach to discussion if you truly see no vitriol in these statements. Anon0098 ( talk) 02:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The anarchy of society condensed into something almost organically human, a website of little happiness and lots of pain that derives it powers not from its greatness but from its weakness.Or something like that. That is the whole point of Wikipedia. It is an experiment, an early Internet experiment, in fact, one of the greatest experiments of all time. Humans have created an entire encyclopedia based on "the innate need that all nerds have to correct others", as my friend affectionally put it. And as such, we aren't all that different. We may be Trump supporters or pineapple-on-pizza haters or vegans or lesbians or cat lovers or professional handball players. We may have two kids or no kids or be an only child or be one of thirteen or be old or young or skinny or fat or Chinese or English or Nigerian, but it doesn't matter. Our differences create an equilibrium, the same tentative equilibrium that defines all of Wikipedia. We are not looking to push our point-of-view, or to deliberately inflame, or to disrupt, though these things may happen. We are simply seeking to make others understand us, and a lot of non-verbal explanation is obscured in online discussion, which creates a lot of problems. Believe me, we aren't looking to shame or embarass or annoy, though we are all human and it happens. It happens and it isn't fun when it does. Yet, we come back, we return to the screen, again and again and again. Why? Why do we choose to take time out of our day to edit a website that gives us nothing in return? Why?
any way bots or sanctions could be set up to protect the introductory body/faq in the talk page? seems like a pretty silly thing to leave to the whims of internet trolls 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has made a negative, politically biased view of trump 2600:1017:B103:C5B4:9D50:B71A:AEC4:67DA ( talk) 10:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
One of the first paragraphs says "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." With no sources or references. This is a clear statement of bias Croazz ( talk) 19:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
On 13 October, 2022 Trump was subpoenaed by the House Select Committee Investigation The January 6th Capital Attack I feel this should be added to Post Presidency Investigations 2600:1004:B09C:48CB:21DF:6FEA:66E4:477F ( talk) 21:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic.
Does this require a citation, as according to consensus item 58?
Cessaune (
talk) 16:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
look like it was written by and for idiots, Khajidha. Lots of articles cite in the lead, some extensively. Just press the random article button and check for yourself. It's very commonplace. And he is a notable BLP, so I think the citation is deserved. Cessaune ( talk) 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
the necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
Please see current consensus, item 49, for the presence of the sentence in the lead and it’s wording. The two RfCs that lead to the inclusion of the material in the lead and its current wording are
Proposed shortening of sentence and
Should false or misleading statements be mentioned in lead. There’s an entire
Racial views section in the body and a Wikilink to
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump in the lead sentence - not easy to overlook. Bob, as for the
WP:SYNTH, please point out the improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research
. Summing up dozens of sources saying he’s racist/made racist remarks/was critized as having made racist remarks with made many false and misleading statements
isn’t synthesis.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 09:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC) I forgot to mention the mysogyny part. That's consensus item 51, based on
this and
this discussion. There's also
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and, as Khajidha already pointed out, the
Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct section in the body.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 15:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Can you point it out to me? Cessaune ( talk) 02:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
in which case use in-text attribution. Cessaune ( talk) 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.So based on those two guidelines, wouldn't we put a citation in the lead and in the body? Cessaune ( talk) 17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that there will be a citation in the lead for this item. Since this is a biased article which has little chance of being remedied, maybe the lack of citations in the lead is for the best because it adds to the appearance of bias and readers can be alerted to that by just looking at the lead. Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As I see it, we should be either all in or all out on this. We should either cite nothing in the lead or throw out the doctrine completely; there is no useful middle ground.
Adding a few citations to the lead would merely increase expectations for the rest. It's misguided to believe a few citations would reduce the number of complaints. "If X is cited, why aren't Y and Z?" ... "Oh, I see you're now citing Y and Z. Thank you. If X, Y, and Z are cited, why aren't A and B?" ... without end. Anything remotely negative will be controversial to many readers, and there is nothing we can do about that. Anything not negative enough will be controversial to many other readers, and there is nothing we can do about that. Trump is controversial. I think it's generally a bad strategy to try to placate readers who don't know how Wikipedia works.
Consider adding something about this in the FAQ? That wouldn't reduce the number of complaints since nobody reads the FAQ before complaining, but it might facilitate the responses to the complaints.
A much better solution would be a permanent tag at the top of the article, but for some reason I don't see that happening. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 ( talk) 20:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The sentence implies that Trump is a racist and misogynistic. Bob K31416 ( talk) 04:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. FormalDude, your and Cessaune's argument seems to be that you think it is but some people might argue that it isn't. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
"About half of registered voters believe President Trump is racist, according to a new national poll released Tuesday, which showed voters are sharply divided along partisan lines on the question." [5] "White voters are divided as 46 percent say he is racist and 50 percent say he is not, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds. Trump is racist black voters say 80 - 11 percent and Hispanic voters say 55 - 44 percent. Men say 55 - 41 percent that Trump is not racist. Women say 59 - 36 percent he is racist." [6] Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Since the sentence implies that Trump is a racist, and about half of registered voters believe Trump is not a racist, the sentence is contentious and should have a citation, according to consensus item 58 and MOS:LEADCITE. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll just make a closing remark and leave it at that.Betcha 12 bitcoin it'll turn out you don't just leave it at that.
Existing Text
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. "
Proposed Text
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses, notably with 65% of the tax savings going to the top 20% of income earners and adding an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years.
[1]
[2] The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act."
Jrpotts (
talk) 12:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes predominantly for businesses and individuals in the upper 20% of earners. The legislation was initiated by his cabinet and was projected to add $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years, partly due to its repeal of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act.[1][2]"
SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Khajidha, I meant to use to it in the section for "businessman" but it's just as suitable for "politician" — those conflicts of interest, making the Secret Service pay through the nose for rent on his properties while protecting him, etc. On second thought, $$ would be even better. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Very oddly, we don't have them, and why shouldn't we? The latest attempt was killed immediately. Somewhat related, we do have a Bibliography of Donald Trump article which is linked to from the "Media career" section. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
From section COVID-19 pandemic > Initial response
References
From the source for the above item,
So according to the source used in this Wikipedia article, Trump did not claim that a vaccine was months away but asked about it. Also, when the vaccine came out 9 months later on Dec 11, 2020, Dr. Fauci said that he had no idea it would come out so fast. [10]
Later in the source there is,
Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Czello, where does the source say "less than year", as you say in your edit summary? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
“All right, so you’re talking within a year,” Trump said moments later. “A year to a year and a half,” interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents.— Czello 12:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
continued to claim that a vaccine would be available within months? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article was changed and currently there is, [11]
References
The fact is that the vaccine came out less than a year later (9 months) on Dec 11, 2020, and the first deliveries were Dec 14. [12] [13] So the Wikipedia article makes a false implication. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
"I've heard very quick numbers — a matter of months — and I've heard pretty much a year would be an outside number. So I think that's not a bad — that's not a bad range. But if you're talking about three to four months, in a couple of cases, and a year in other cases — wouldn't you say, doctor, would that be about right?" President Trump, coronavirus roundtable meeting, March 2, 2020( WaPo),
President Donald Trump has suggested multiple times that a coronavirus vaccine could come within months( NBC). Further down in the Politico article cited by you:
in the meantime, he’s sharing some inaccurate theories and asking confounding questions about how a vaccine might work, all while the cameras roll.Anyway, I don't know what you're complaining about when I should be the one who's complaining. The text now says that he
continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year awaywhen he kept going back to "months, isn't that about right". Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Recapitulating what's going on: It's an application of Valjean's idea to eliminate any perceived need for lead cites by providing section references in the lead linking to the section in the body, with the refcites and the wikilinks to other articles, that's summarized by the sentence(s) in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Contrary to my initial concern on the 12th, it is in fact significantly less clutter than a bunch of citations. It looks remarkably and unexpectedly clean, illustrating one of the reasons to Just Do It. It's a major improvement to the article in multiple ways, and I'm proud of us. Can't wait to see this adopted at other articles after we have a template.
On the subject of the template, I think some consideration of the template name is in order. "Leadref" has worked for purposes of discussion, but these are not refs; rather, they are an alternative to refs in the lead. That said, I can't think of anything better at the moment. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 ( talk) 00:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Lead section anchors. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
{{lsl|First impeachment}}
. If an editor doesn't use them enough to remember the somewhat cryptic template name, they can simply look at existing examples. There is plenty of precedent for acronym template names, such as {{
pb}}
for paragraph break or {{
tl}}
for template link. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)
161.97.225.237 (
talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
Paragraph break}}
and {{
Template link}}
, respectively, with redirects for the acronyms. So our template name could be "Lead section link", with an "lsl" redirect, but the long form would be rarely or never used. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)
161.97.225.237 (
talk) 02:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Since " section links are all cross-references to targets, i.e., page name/label of another article, section heading in another article, and section heading in the same article respectively," can't we call these something like "lead to section links" or "lead section links"? The only difference is that we use a section/pilcrow/paragraph symbol rather than a hashtag, and it's strictly for the local article. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Upon further reflection:
If one put a {{
section link}}
in a lead (which I've seen happen occasionally), that would be a lead section link, no? To avoid that, maybe "lead basis section" or something equally unique?
I actually like "lead basis section"—(1) it better reflects the purpose of the thing, and (2) the lead is formally called the "lead section" (
WP:LEAD)—but {{
lbs}}
already exists. For the redirect, we'd have to use "lbsect" or something (I don't recommend "leadbs" ;)).
Maybe I'm overthinking this a little, as the name is somewhat arbitrary; {{xyz|First impeachment}}
would work equally well since there's no need to memorize the name. But it's not arbitrary enough to call it a ref or an anchor, since that would be clearly incorrect. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)
161.97.225.237 (
talk) 11:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Very oddly, we don't have them, and why shouldn't we? The latest attempt was killed immediately. Somewhat related, we do have a Bibliography of Donald Trump article which is linked to from the "Media career" section. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
From section COVID-19 pandemic > Initial response
References
From the source for the above item,
So according to the source used in this Wikipedia article, Trump did not claim that a vaccine was months away but asked about it. Also, when the vaccine came out 9 months later on Dec 11, 2020, Dr. Fauci said that he had no idea it would come out so fast. [14]
Later in the source there is,
Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Czello, where does the source say "less than year", as you say in your edit summary? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
“All right, so you’re talking within a year,” Trump said moments later. “A year to a year and a half,” interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents.— Czello 12:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
continued to claim that a vaccine would be available within months? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article was changed and currently there is, [15]
References
The fact is that the vaccine came out less than a year later (9 months) on Dec 11, 2020, and the first deliveries were Dec 14. [16] [17] So the Wikipedia article makes a false implication. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
"I've heard very quick numbers — a matter of months — and I've heard pretty much a year would be an outside number. So I think that's not a bad — that's not a bad range. But if you're talking about three to four months, in a couple of cases, and a year in other cases — wouldn't you say, doctor, would that be about right?" President Trump, coronavirus roundtable meeting, March 2, 2020( WaPo),
President Donald Trump has suggested multiple times that a coronavirus vaccine could come within months( NBC). Further down in the Politico article cited by you:
in the meantime, he’s sharing some inaccurate theories and asking confounding questions about how a vaccine might work, all while the cameras roll.Anyway, I don't know what you're complaining about when I should be the one who's complaining. The text now says that he
continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year awaywhen he kept going back to "months, isn't that about right". Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I added two books to the Trump media template but they are not shown in the navbox at the bottom of the article. Did I do that wrong, or do I need do something else? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Valjean, I shortened
neither served in the military nor held any government office prior to becoming president to "
neither served in the military nor held any government office prior to becoming president" because it's just so much blue. Will the shorter link really confuse any reader? I also think the two sentences at the beginning of the second paragraph were better: Trump graduated from the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a
bachelor's degree in 1968. He became president of his father's real estate business in 1971 and renamed it
The Trump Organization.
There's a distinct break between the 1968 graduation and the 1971 real estate promotion. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but using the participle phrase "renaming it" seems to infer that he became president of the company by renaming it.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 20:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of his education from the lead. [18] That's a basic biographical fact, almost as basic as date and place of birth. It was part of the <20% of the lead not about his presidency, which is well covered in multiple other articles. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 ( talk) 17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
t@lk 20:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
May we please delete those little squiggly (which link to sections of this very BLP) things out of this BLPs content. They're scattered all over the page & don't look good. GoodDay ( talk) 01:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
BOLD does not require an RfC. This was carefully implemented by a group of very experienced editors. BLP is not an issue as this actually ensures BLP better than the current practice of avoiding refs in the lead, refs that are much more disturbing to the eye than the squigglies.
This ties the lead to the exact sections with the refs, unlike our current leads. It leaves a much cleaner lead. Of course, now that you are focused on the squigglies, you can't "not see" them, but please try. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
optical distraction, IMO. The "squigglies" have a Wikipedia page and several names: section sign, silcrow, section symbol, and section mark. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: Considering that this had fervent and almost unanimous support at this article, including some of its most experienced and competent editors, your starting an RfC unilaterally, without even discussing it first, was improper and irresponsible. This could not be more clear at WP:RFCBEFORE; I suggest you read it.
Your calling the section signs "squigglies", alone, shows your lack of understanding of the concept, and it's absurd to say they look worse or are more distracting than citation numbers when it's one character versus three to five.
That was a knee-jerk and very misguided action on your part, and you have done a disservice to the project. Whether it will ultimately kill this major progress remains to be seen. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 ( talk) 09:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Another concern. Those changes, directs a reader to sections within the article. This can be initially confusing, as (for myself), I first thought I was directed to different (though related) articles. GoodDay ( talk) 09:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
the time to present that concern has passed.The time to present the concern is now. As I said, not everyone jumps to the talk page. Not everyone (basically no one) was aware of this change. Now they see it, now they don't agree with it, now they come here. If, for example, we had created an RfC, it might be different, but to expect people to have been aware of a relatively short-lived talk page discussion, and then to say that since they weren't aware of it, their opinion isn't valid, seems unfair in my eyes. Cessaune ( talk) 18:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
the time to present that concern has passed, but consensus can change at any time. If a wide variety of editors agree with the change that's fine, but it doesn't appear this was reviewed by enough editors to reach that standard. Nemov ( talk) 18:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
People who wouldn't normally look at the talk page saw the lead and were like "what the &#$% is this cursed dollar sign thing" and came here.-- Except that actually, that is not what happened. Our two dissents come from editors who are watching this article all the time and who have separate but related concerns with NPOV and what they consider mainstream sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
optical distractions. But how long will it be before someone reverts the page to that former state or editors start adding wikilinks to one of the 1001 DT subpages or random WP pages for words that belong in a dictionary rather than in an encyclopedia, with the argument that this is how it’s been always done and/or this is how it’s done on other pages? Leaves no room for improvement or evolution. Adding the section signs wasn’t done surreptitiously in the dead of night. There was a lengthy discussion involving seven editors over two days, a demonstration of what the change would look like, and a total of three days when the links were placed, targeting the appropriate body sections. Please, take a look at the lead before, during (1), during (2), and after. Signing with four squiggles (enough with the squigglies, already), Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
At a time of Valjean's choosing, Val has agreed to open an RFC on the proposed changes, at WP:Village Pump (proposals). -- GoodDay ( talk) 21:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
If this has reached a stalemate, it seems like it has to me, is a RfC needed here? Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 04:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This was brought up before but ultimately got swallowed by the "is Trump a terrorist" thread...
I don't like this sentence: He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.
After reading the sources, is seems like they talk about all these things Trump should have done without actually commenting on the political practicality of it, the economic praticality. Trump probably should've reacted faster, but who's to say he reacted slowly? How do we even define slowly? This is why I want to change the sentence to: His response to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was often criticized, as he contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.
(I would get rid of the ignored part, as ignoring a recommendation is the same thing as contradicting it, right?)
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/04/16/trumps-handling-of-coronavirus-outbreak/
Cessaune (
talk) 03:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was often characterized as slowwould fit better, if nothing at all. Cessaune ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
His response to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was often criticized, as he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.Cessaune ( talk) 02:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
His response to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was [insert adjective, widely?] condemned by both the media and the public, as he often downplayed or dismissed the danger of the virus, ignored and contradicted recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.Cessaune ( talk) 04:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
In this rule, you say about verifiability, not truth (?)! But why don't you follow that?
You have said Trump lost but falsely claimed victory or something like that? Why falsely? how do you know the Truth? We know truth only with Jesus our LORD! On wikipedia, you quote things! How did you compute that Trump is right or wrong? At least quote one decisive court decision there! Thanx! 88.155.31.51 ( talk) 17:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Lets not bait users or attack their beliefs. wp:npa applies to everyone. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
What is dimadick's historicity? It's not in need, you see 88.155.31.51 ( talk) 18:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Re [19] — It was a matter of judgement. I thought that the part removed from the lead was a digression and didn't read well. Here's what it looked like after the trim,
Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Since the RS [20] supports lost, would the following work?
Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
In the lead there is,
I don't think this should be in the lead because it is mainly about Russia's activities: "established that Russia interfered" "did not establish that members of the campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia". Bob K31416 ( talk) 01:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The item occurs in the third paragraph of the lead. Here are the subjects of the sentences in the paragraph along with the item under discussion.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.This is more focused on what the investigation found about Trump rather than unduly discussing what Russia did. What Russia did without evidence Trump was involved surely is undue in this lead. This article is about Trump not Russia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 15:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaignSpace4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)but did not establish that members of the campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia.
I removed the second clause - I counted six editors in favor, two supporting removing the entire sentence, and two supporting keeping the entire sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we can continue much of this discussion below:
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would support Wikipedia but you are not fair in your treatment of Trump. You also censor conservatives. You are too bias to deserve support. By the way I don’t like Trump either. 136.239.97.247 ( talk) 02:47, 14 November 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.
Saying Trump was one of the worst presidents in US history, even while backed by sources is still a matter of opinion. What one expert believes is hardly a precedent for how Trump may be viewed by the country as a whole, especially considering how he may be viewed in the future in context with other presidential actions. I respectfully believe the line should be removed for its opinionated and frankly, rather combative content. 2001:44C8:428E:C2AF:38B1:F56A:84AF:483D ( talk) 10:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead section refs (leadrefs) development before a later discussion at the Village Pump. Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In April, as an alternative to citations, I replaced some of the links in the lead with links to the respective body sections and got reverted pronto. One of the arguments at the time was that "readers would probably expect to be taken to another article entirely." How do we know that? Has there been a poll, not to mention a reliable poll, of readers’ expectations? I don’t remember what I expected — other than more info — when clicking on an inline link before I started editing on WP. (Also, quite a few of the articles on Trump have a quality problem.) Another argument was not wanting "people confused if sometimes they click a link and it goes to another article, and other times they click a link and just jump around in the same article." Are WP readers unfamiliar with the revert arrow in their browsers?
MOS is style, not policy (It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
) And we shouldn’t presume that WP readers are easily confused or unfamiliar with the revert arrow of their browsers, i.e., less competent than us genius editors. In a lead and an article of this size, I think the lead should be a summary of article content without citations or inline links to other articles - want more info, look at the table of contents and/or click on the inline link to read the section in the body with the citations and the links to other articles (yeah, when pigs fly). The lead, not just in this article, seems to be turning into an article in its own right.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 16:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
<sup>[[#First impeachment|§ he was impeached]]</sup>
. Is this the clickable section reference
Valjean’s
proposal is referring to: he was impeached<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
? I’m not quite clear on the concept of where to add the symbol. The sentence in the example has six links to other pages (and I just noticed that two are
MOS:SOB). The two linking to "event" pages are no problem but what about the other four? "Abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are also mentioned in
First impeachment, of course, so the links could be located there, but what about Biden and the House of Representatives? (The specific charges could also be replaced by "two charges", IMO.)
pressured Ukraine to investigate<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
Biden in 2019, he was impeached<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
by the
House of Representatives for abuse of power<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
and obstruction of Congress<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>
in December.Has this format been used in any other live article yet? Zaathras ( talk) 13:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
An important concept to make this work best is my belief in a tight/mirrored connection between each part of the lead and each section in the body, IOW mirroring the ORDER each appears in the body. The lead should mirror the body, also in the order in which things are mentioned. Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section describes this. This concept IS NOT an absolute requirement for using leadrefs. I mention this just as an FYI. My essay deals with much more than just the lead or just leadrefs. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, groundbreakers. Is that how things should work, though? I'd think a new referencing system would start somewhere at the Village Pump rather than an article talk page that is only frequented by a handful of politics-oriented editors. There's also the "why" to consider, is this truly to inform the reader, or assuage an even tinier handful of gadflies who want every Trump-critical thing in the lede referenced? Zaathras ( talk)
Readers should be steered to our body first, and only then to other articles if they want even more detail.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I
did the deed, per Just add a few without the template and see if it's accepted
. What's the worst than can happen? I get reverted, and it's not as if that would be a new experience.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 18:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
For goodness sake folks. Don't re-add those again. They're visually distracting. At least open an RFC on it, rather then making such big changes. GoodDay ( talk) 01:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Editing to keep open - status unclear, to be continued? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)