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 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | → | Archive 155 |
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)
Editing to keep open - status unclear, to be continued? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This section is a continuation of the previous section #Investigation into Russia interference in election in lead...
Current mention:
Context should be added from this content in the body:
Result (after striking part that is unnecessary in the lead):
What say ye? That is all factual, not opinion, solidly based on well-sourced content in the body, mostly from the Mueller Report. That context is important, as it otherwise is just an insertion about the Russians, and says little about Trump. His reaction is the most important part, especially in this article. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
mostly from the Mueller Report, why remove the specific for a generalized "investigations"? I also prefer "benefit" to "favor". I'd support shortening the sentence to "benefit Trump's campaign" or "benefit Trump", the purpose being to get him elected. Suggestion:
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump who welcomed and encouraged the interference.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers. Like the Mueller report that preceded it, the report does not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, but it does go further than the Mueller report in detailing the ties found between Trump campaign members and Russian individuals. In particular, it describes Paul Manafort as "a grave counterintelligence threat". According to the report, "some evidence suggests" that Konstantin Kilimnik, to whom Manafort provided polling data, was directly connected to the Russian theft of Clinton-campaign emails. In addition, while Trump's written testimony in the Mueller report stated that he did not recall speaking with Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, the Senate report concludes that "Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions".Andre 🚐 20:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, let's look at what we have so far:
Any other suggestions? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
… to benefit Trump. Trump welcomed and encouraged the interference., based on the fourth paragraph of Special counsel investigation and the RS supporting it? After reading the sources, I’m not sure whether Trump publicly welcoming and encouraging should be based on investigations alone, whether Mueller's or others, because it’s also based on RS reporting on press conferences Trump gave, this one, for example. (SpaceX? Ugh. I believe that moniker is claimed by some rich guy with a bullhorn who thinks he knows more than he does. They also use spacex.com. I’ve looked at abbreviating my signature but haven’t figured out the customization and linking.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump. Trump welcomed and encouraged the interference.It's this version without "campaign" and an additional second sentence on Trump welcoming etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It's been several weeks, since I've fully engaged in any political-based content disputes on this BLP. With the US about 10 days away from its mid-term elections? I'm even more reluctant to take sides. Therefore, concerning the topic-in-question, do what ya'll think is best? GoodDay ( talk) 17:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has a bias of wanting to include items accusing Trump and excluding items that defend Trump, such as the fact that the Mueller investigation and the Senate report did not find that Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to win the election. In any case, my position is that none of this is appropriate for the lead, as discussed in the previous section that this current section has been separated from. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
References
takeaways
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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.
It would be best not to leave this decision (include/exclude) in the hands of a small # of editors. Recommend an RFC be opened on this matter.
GoodDay (
talk) 16:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
small # of editorsmaking any editing decisions no matter what or where? How many editors do you think will constitute a "solid" consensus, and at what point will this guideline of yours bring editing on WP to a crashing halt? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
If this is anything to go by, yes we are at an impasse (or at least a slagging match). What it will do (I hope) is to attract fresh eyes, and we can then those who are arguing will see what the wider community thinks, rather than being told what it thinks. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
the FEW, yet I don't see any input of yours other than some quibbling about lead/lede. If none of the watchers of this page want to get involved in any given discussion why shouldn't the few who are involved find a consensus? Oh, and thanks for thethe proudhere right now
echo chamber, back slapping, cohert[sic]. Civility is always appreciated, not to mention a Wikipedia policy. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Anyone involved (or not involved) in this content dispute, are free to open an RFC. GoodDay ( talk) 21:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
violatedor
ignoredbaffles me. RFCBEFORE says:
Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.
Save RfCs for simple matters (what color to use or which image) where editors are at a split decision and impasse.flies in the face of the " What an RFC is" section itself:
A request for comment (RfC) is a request to the Wikipedia community for comment on an issue. Often, the issue is what an article should say. [...] If, for example, the editors of a certain article cannot agree on whether a certain fact should be included, they can use an RfC to find out what the community thinks and, if a consensus emerges, that usually resolves the dispute.
Launch an RFC or don't launch one, but if no one is willing to do it can we stop talking about it? THis is waisting as much time as an RFC would. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, then you can ask on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments. Which seems completely irrelevant. FeRDNYC ( talk) 05:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.Andre 🚐 05:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Going to 'hat' the recommendation discussion in a few hours. It's been a week now & nobody's chosen to open an RFC. Indeed the discussion on whether or not to open one, has outgrown the topic it would've been about. GoodDay ( talk) 05:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This edit summary says that the cited source attributes the decision-making to the Army. The cited RS also says that he "declar[ed] on Twitter that 'All is well!'", told the press that "some of the troops involved had 'headaches' but that the situation was 'not very serious,'" and that the Trump-appointed defense secretary dragged his feet. [1] [2] Soldiers who were medevaced to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany received Purple Hearts (hard to argue "not very serious" in those cases), dozens of others weren’t. The RS also says that former Pentagon spokeswoman Farrah said that the Trump WH had "leaned on the Defense Department to downplay the attack." The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the president and commander-in-chief. If the word comes down from the top that it was no big deal, you think "Lieutenant General Pat White, the three-star general who oversaw the entire theatre" will stick his neck out and approve 69 purple hearts? CBS says that the commander of the task force stationed at Ain al-Asad air base submitted 56 names of the injured, and only 23 were approved. [3] "'I heard they had headaches and a couple of other things. I can report it is not very serious,' Trump said at a news conference in Davos, Switzerland, arguing that potential traumatic brain injuries are less severe than amputations. … 'I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I’ve seen," Trump said, comparing them to troops losing limbs in combat. "No, I do not consider them bad injuries.'" [1] Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Direct quote: "I’m pleased to inform you: The American people should be extremely grateful and happy no Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Per CBS, soldiers they spoke with believed the decision to be political. "After bringing their concerns up the chain of command, Hansen said he and Fix were told to stop asking about the soldiers who did not receive the Purple Heart. "The messaging I was getting was just the political situation wasn't going to support more approvals," Hansen said. In the October 6 letter, Fix wrote, "I was also directed not to inquire about the remaining awards or resubmit those awards." The soldiers CBS spoke with said after the attack, there was pressure to downplay the growing injuries to avoid a further escalation with Iran and avoid undercutting former President Trump.
USA Today: Dwight Mears, an author, West Point graduate and former history professor at the military academy who researches military medals, said high-level political interference in lower-level medals like the Purple Heart is unusual. Former President Trump shattered that norm.
[4] after reporting that it took the Pentagon a month to even acknowledge that there had been traumatic brain injuries, that 25 soldiers had to be medevaced, and that Trump had said there were no serious injuries. Isn't that sufficient for WP to say that the soldiers were denied the awards because Trump downplayed the injuries?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 13:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The VFW asked Trump to apologize for his "misguided remarks." [5] Instead, he doubled down. [6] Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
References
It just dawned on me that there may be a different issue with this content, so I need to make sure we're understanding Bob K31416 correctly. The NOR matter may be a red herring that distracts from the real issue. Let's see what discussion will reveal.
Bob, you wrote:
Is the issue that the content doesn't belong in this article because it doesn't mention "retaliation" or some synonym? It seems clear that the missiles were retaliation, but maybe the shooting down of 752 was an accident not directly related to retaliation. Is that the reason you're objecting? Maybe it was just an accident related to the heightened tensions caused by Trump's threats. Please explain your thinking without duplicating your arguments above, as they were not clear enough. Content can be relevant because it speaks to the immediate subject in the sentence or paragraph, even if it doesn't mention Trump. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
I looked at the current state of the item and it appears to be synth. It uses one source to say that Trump threatened Iran and follows that with another source to say that the airliner was shot down because of increased tensions between Iran and the US. This implies that the airliner was shot down because of Trump's threats against Iran, a statement that is in neither of the sources. Bob K31416 ( talk) 12:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I don’t like the adverb "accidentally" in this context, and the cited source is dated January 10, 2020, and based on an article from the day before, i.e., before Iran admitted shooting down the jet. The Iranians accidentally shooting down the plane indicates that they didn’t mean to do it - somebody tripped and accidentally hit the red "fire" button. They did it deliberately, however, allegedly mistakenly believing the plane to be "moving in a direction that made it more likely to be a hostile object." Low-level human error, allegedly, after their initial claims that mechanical problems on the plane had caused it to crash. The Guardian reported that missile defense operators, on high alert for American reprisals after the missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq (seems it’s not just the MAGA base who believes every word Trump utters on social media - the genius tweet goading fanatics) had moved a battery earlier in the day and then failed to recalibrate their systems. [1] [2] The radar system was "107 degrees off in detecting the trajectory of the Ukrainian jet, giving one of the missile operators the impression it was moving in a direction that made it more likely to be a hostile object." He, no Vasily Arkhipov, was supposed to obtain authorization before firing, couldn’t get through, and fired without approval. Adding RS saying that Iranians believed the plane to be an American warplane. [3] Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
multiple RS strongly imply a connection(emphasis mine). That is not enough.
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. It is generally believed that Iran brought down the plane by accident, due to heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
Edit conflict. When RS synthesize an implication or a conclusion, we document it. If there is any doubt, we attribute it. We could say that multiple sources[1][2][3] implied that the shooting down of 752 occurred because of the heightened tensions caused by Trump's threat, and one source[4] stated [quote that 180 people died who might not have died]. (That is a very rough paraphrase, so just work out any inaccuracies rather than crucify me.) Use the exact quote. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Are we really jumping thru this many hoops to assuage the objections of a lone user?—this is the wording of indifference. Again—
I agree the current version is fine, or at least not worth all the time and attention—indifference. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be done with a topic, but to argue against it in the first place requires that you stick through till the end.
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, said anything useful. The sentence does not establish a connection between Trump and the flight. The reader has no idea if the flight was brought down due to the heightened tensions or in spite of/during the period of heighterend tensions. We need to actually state something, and we aren't.
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American intellegence determined that the plane was brought down by accident, likely due to the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.Cessaune ( talk) 00:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is the current version of the airliner item that is in the Wikipedia article. [7]
Although the given sources are RS for the airliner item, they do not appear to mention Trump, so the use of the airliner item is OR per my previous remarks. In general, sources that do not mention Trump should not be used in this article about Trump. Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Bob K31416, what kind of BS is this deletion of content developed after long discussion to resolve a problem YOU pointed out? When all PAG are finally followed, then you delete it? That really looks suspicious. You should have discussed that first. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Cessaune, Here's the RS.
It's an article about the airliner destruction that discusses Trump's culpability. Here's an excerpt that has a part that accuses Trump, which is followed by a part with a different view, which the proposed edit is based on.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
a rebuttal to the accusations about Trump. Cessaune ( talk) 03:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy note since it apparently slipped the OPs mind to do so; Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Trump_bio_—_Iran_mistakenly_shot_down_airliner_II. Zaathras ( talk) 06:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Valjean: Huh? What was wrong with the previous version, as edited by O3000, and why add sources that were written BEFORE Iran admitted that they had shot the plane? Also, it's not an accident when they deliberately shoot it down, never mind that they claim to have thought they were shooting at an American fighter aircraft. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
This section isn't a reboot, it's a repeat of the preceding one. Same editors, same arguments, same proposals, nibbled to death by ducks. Words have consequences, in this case Trump threatening Iran with already having put targets on 52 Iranian sites should they dare to retaliate for Soleimani's killing. They dared, they put their military on high alert, they weren't able to distinguish a passenger jetliner from Chickenman. Trump set the chain of events in motion. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Trump's bluster and unpredictability... almost certainly contributed to the conditions that allowed this grievous mistake to be made.
An item about an airliner in the section Iran violates Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. It is the second part of the following sentence.
The cite that is about the airliner is the first one.
The airliner part of the sentence violates WP:NOR, which states in its first paragraph,"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article..." The given source is not directly related to the topic of the article, which is Trump. Bob K31416 ( talk) 12:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Bob, NOR has nothing to do with this. The content is backed up by the RS, so no OR. Maybe you're thinking of off-topic or coatrack? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
What has that airliner to do with Trump? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Because of DS restrictions, we need a very clear consensus to remove it, so no reverting or removal yet. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Three days after Trump warned Iran not to retaliate for Soleimani's killing, claiming to have targeted 52 Iranian sites "to be hit very fast and very hard," [1] Iran launches ballistic missiles against two U.S. bases in Iraq and shoots down a passenger plane erroneously "identified as a hostile target" because of an allegedly "misaligned radar and an error by an air defence operator". If I were stationed at an "Iranian site" after that Trump announcement, though preferably with a radar that's not misaligned, whatever that means, I might be nervous, too, and err on the side of caution. [2] Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Would it be alright to 'close/hat' this discussion? Since it's been rebooted below?
Please place further discussion in the next section #REBOOT of "Airliner shot down". -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Can’t edit even grammar mistakes like these. Need someone else to. 172.74.203.83 ( talk) 06:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
closing as nitpicking in an attempt to insert
Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE
Dronebogus (
talk) 00:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
Look, I don't support Trump in what he does, but it still wasn't hard for me to notice the bias in this article. Entire paragraphs here are just to talk negatively about him. Wikipedia should only give the facts, and not be loaded with opinion articles. Eric McCrea ( talk) 17:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
|
@ KlayCax: you violated the active arbitration remedies (24-hr BRD cycle) in effect on the main page with this edit, with the misleading edit summary that you were "reverting ... back to the original" when in reality you reverted to the changes you had made to the article. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Partial reversion - reverting the wording of the lead back to the original while adding clarification that the 330 endorsements relate to the *2022 United States elections*. Trump's 2022 endorsements are clearly notable and WP: Due.
including making over 200 political endorsementswas changed to
including making over 330 political endorsementsper ( McGraw, 2022). I also clarified that the "330 endorsements" was referring to the 2022 United States elections in the lead. Since it could be unclear for readers on when he made "330 endorsements".
with the misleading edit summaryI was under the wrongful impression that @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: wasn't objecting to those parts of the edit. I immediately reverted it back after the notification from him. I wasn't being misleading. I misunderstood what he meant. It is now reverted back to the 05:32, 12 November 2022 version by @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers:.
Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.
I objected three times,
here to the change in the lead,
here to the potential 2024 run and Trump’s statements on DeSantis and Youngkin, and
here to the other changes in the post-presidency section, such as moving the "Big Lie" into a new 2022 election section (do you have any sources to support what appears to be your opinion that it had anything to do with the midterms?).
As for WP:DUE for the page … It's remarkably clear that the Republican underperformance is notable for his biography
, why? The sources merely say that "many Republicans blame". He endorsed, but it was the members of the Republican Party who elected the Republican candidates in the primaries (and in the general election in red districts).
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 13:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the status quo ante I reverted to. Not sure why you, KlayCax, reverted to a version I objected to, never mind that you piled your changes onto Iamreallygoodatcheckers's. My edit summary (Not an improvement - pls discuss these changes on the Talk page. Trump wasn't running for office in 2022, the blame game has only begun, and some election results are still pending) applied to the end product. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Seems to me that this top bio doesn’t need more than the short status quo ante version (Trump’s endorsement were mostly seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections) with the add-on "but many of them lost in the general election". Put the rest in Republican Party (United States) and/or 2022 United States elections. Trump beginning to "jab" DeSantis and Youngkin belongs in the newspapers, not in an encyclopedia. 3RR prevents me from reverting. I’m not sure whether KlayCax’s edit falls under the 24-hr BRD cycle since they now re-reverted to a version they had built upon and I had objected to. If it doesn’t violate the letter, it violates the spirit, IMO, reverting instead of discussing. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Many of Trump's endorsements were inexperienced and underperformed in the general election, which led many Republicans to blame Trump for the lackluster performance of the Republican Party in the 2022 midterms and question whether he should continue as the leader of the party. [1] [2] Following the election, Trump began jabbing Ron DeSantis and Glenn Youngkin, potential challengers in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. [3] [4]
but many of them lost in the general electionis not sufficient enough. It needs to be understood that many RS and fellow Republicans are blaming Trump for his endorsements in key races that lost. That is significant because it's putting Trump in a predicament that may be devastating to his political standing in his party. Surely that warrants one sentence in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 00:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
may bedevastating. It's speculation at this point. After the January 6, 2021, insurrection, Republicans initially blamed Trump, then, "just a few weeks later, [were] already singing a different tune". Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
References
It's not proven that our president invited the people 174.251.135.96 ( talk) 03:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Reading over the precedence of contention regarding the basics of the lead, I have a feeling that the inclusion of mentioning the recent 2024 campaign announcement might be up for comment. I generally support it, given that it is safe to assume Trump's elevated political activity and involvement is a theme sufficiently active enough to merit including at least the basis for including mentions of further presidential campaign activity; admittedly, the subject of what goes in and what doesn't probably deserves discussion from those far more versed on the discussion than I am.
So I'm posting just to clear it and make note of it for archival's sake, because maybe the wording could use tweaking and as the campaign situation evolves, so will consensus on it emerge (probably forcing terms of the campaign's inclusion in the lead to be enshrined in the huge consensus list posted up there in the talk). Better to act cautiously ‒ overthrows 04:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
References
I added the sentence above within the Post-presidency (2021–present) >> FBI investigation subsection ( User:Nerguy added the counsel's name, thank you!)
But it doesn't fit. The special counsel (SC) was not appointed as part of the probe on the classified docs, he was appointed to centralize all federal probes, including ones regarding Trump's involvement in January 6th (if I'm reading news reports correctly).
Where should we put this, and how should we phrase it?
I considered putting it under Post-presidency (2021–present) >> 2024 presidential campaign, but then it may imply to some readers that the SC was political retaliation on Biden's part; I actually think explaining the reason for the SC's formation (to make the probes independent from the Biden admin, and avoid any accusations of impropriety) would be a good idea, but we'd need to agree on the wording; that explanation would ideally be very brief, just a few words. DFlhb ( talk) 22:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I know this has discussed before, but no resolution was ever brought forth. This article has some of the most insignificant things possible about Trump's foreign policy, such as him hypothetically saying he would strike back at Iran after they struck U.S. troops in Iraq (a hypothetical that never became reality) yet it doesn't have the most major treaty negotiated under him in 2020? Israel's peace with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco was hailed as significant by numerous international observers, far more than say a single quote from one American journalist saying that Trump was to blame for Iran's shooting of an airliner. The page has an insane amount of fluff, yet something substantial can't fit in? Bill Williams 14:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
As someone uninvolved with previous discussions, I don't see a strong reason why a simple mention of the Accords shouldn't be included in the Foreign Policy section, as it stands. Trying to parse old discussions to see what points had been made, this is what I found:
Honestly, based on all of that, I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude a minor mention of these accords in this article. The 'Foreign Policy' section in this article is quite extensive already; seems odd to draw the WP:UNDUE line in the sand here. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
It's too absurd that people are saying this deal has a negligible impact, and as a result we shouldn't mentioned it. We must add this section and maybe we can mention what was the impact of it in two years later. I didn't know that Wikipedia editors have to judge the actions as well! you're here to tell the truth, it's up to the readers to decide. Unfortunately it seems that Wikipedia political articles are controlled by the same editors in the mainstream media trying to hide or undermine Trump's achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaka123 ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I also added info on Morocco and Sudan, since it was a major change in U.S., Moroccan, and Sudanese foreign policy. Sudan was under heavy sanctions until it was removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list before it normalized relations with Israel, while Moroccan control over Western Sahara was recognized by almost no country until the U.S. did so. Morocco also received billions in additional arms sales while it and Sudan both engaged in economic and tourist agreements with Israel in response to the normalization. Considering the restriction of travel on Sudan was already mentioned in the article, and that had far less of an effect than the crippling sanctions on the nation, while other disputed territory recognition was mentioned as well, I think it is my addition is warranted for inclusion. Bill Williams 02:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Kobra98, you added current equivalents to various dollar amounts, stating that "converting dollar amounts for inflation gives context to readers." Is that context readers need or want, 'though? What they lose is the cites for the sentences since the template adds its own cites. E.g., the cite for the first two sentences of Donald_Trump#Wealth is the one after the second sentence. With the addition of the template, it looks as though the American Antiquarian Society PDFs are the cites for the sentence. Sure, we could fix that by adding the actual cite to the first sentence, too, but do we need to know the current equivalents of hundreds of millions of dollars? Kudos for developing that template, but a better place for it would be the main article Wealth of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm a reader who can't relate to $562 million any better than to $200 million. In one of the sentences the equivalent doesn't even make sense: In 1995, his reported losses were $915.7 million (equivalent to $1.63 billion in 2021).
Trump received a tax credit for $915.7 million, and he offset that amount against taxes due for almost 20 years, never mind equivalents due to inflation.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Would it be better to place 2024, underneath the Post-presidency (2021–present) section where it was originally was? The articles events seem to run in chronological order with the 2024 presidental campaign now in the middle and all of Trump's presidency and his policies are now underneath it. Aaron106 ( talk) 02:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a "comparison section" that showed any possible similarities between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 09:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Should we link to the former president's truth social account page? Since he is currently actively tweeting from there instead of twitter and is now a presidential candidate again, seems like something worthy of mention. Saw a similar thread above about his twitter link, so feel free to merge this with that if deemed appropriate. 23.84.19.247 ( talk) 23:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the lead section has two citations for the "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history" sentence. However, both of these citations are repeated in the body (the "Approval ratings and scholar surveys" section in particular), which would make the citations redundant. Mucube ( talk) 01:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
"There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations."
"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.(emphasis not mine). Also, the hidden note is definitely appropriate and shouldn't be removed as I'd imagine that particular sentence would have a tendency of being removed without those removing it realising it's supported by consensus. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 01:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I know that the lead is long and that there is a discussion going on right now over whether or not it is biased, but if we can discuss bias at length perhaps we could discuss something that has bothered me for a long time. Please see our article Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. What do you think, should we mention it in the lead? Sectionworker ( talk) 14:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Would this be OK? During his time in office Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife. Sectionworker ( talk) 20:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.Internal U.S. policies and regulations (
rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife) are a different matter, and the Biden administration got to work on undoing them right after Biden's inauguration { January 20, 2021, Executive Order). How about
He rolled back environmental policies and regulations, 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.in the fourth paragraph? IMO, the rest is too much detail for the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, okay.
This article is too long to not have more blue in the lead. This extreme 'no blue in the lead' stance that has been taken here minimizes efficiency. Regardless of how controversial any specific statement is, some statements are deserving of a little blue because they are inherently complicated or interesting, IMHO.
I want to open an RfC about this. An article this big requires more blue in the lead, if not solely for the purpose of helping readers navigate. What do y'all think? Cessaune ( talk) 00:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
So since his twitter page was just restored, should we include a link to it in the "External Links" section, like we had before his twitter page was suspended? I noticed that the link to the archive requires consensus to change. 08:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Mgasparin ( talk) 08:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
"I like Elon, but I’m staying on Truth," Mr. Trump said during a Fox News interview after Mr. Musk’s takeover. ... Mr. Trump is obligated to make his posts available exclusively on Truth Social for six hours before sharing them on other sites, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He can post to any site immediately if the messages pertain to political messaging, fund-raising, or get-out-the-vote initiatives.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the twitter page link. I have also kept the link to the archive, since as DFlhb stated, many tweets were deleted over the course of his presidency. Mgasparin ( talk) 22:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"reacted slowly to the COVID-19 Pandemic" is an opinionated statement and should be changed, especially with the development of the vaccine and democrats calling his border closing xenophobic. Nkienzle ( talk) 05:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template. (please note that most paragraphs in the lead of this article are established by longstanding consensus.)
Colonestarrice (
talk) 06:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe there is previous consensus on any of these. These proposals each stand on their own, and are not mutually exclusive, so please weigh in on each.
Proposal A: remove the following external link:
It now a redirect to a donation page.
Proposal B: remove the following external link:
I see no reason to elevate the NYT's coverage above others. This link merely shows recent articles about Trump; it's not a fancy visualization, or deep-dive, or a single page that seeks to seriously evaluate Trump's record. This link also violates WP:ELREG since these articles require a subscription to view.
Proposal C: remove the following external link:
I don't see the dueness of this. This links to a nonprofit project that interviews prominent and non-prominent figures in the television industry. There seem to be only 17 interviews, each with an average length of only two minutes. I see no encyclopedic or historical value. If we have an article on celebrities' views of Donald Trump, this would belong there. DFlhb ( talk) 21:46, 28 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 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | → | Archive 155 |
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)
Editing to keep open - status unclear, to be continued? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This section is a continuation of the previous section #Investigation into Russia interference in election in lead...
Current mention:
Context should be added from this content in the body:
Result (after striking part that is unnecessary in the lead):
What say ye? That is all factual, not opinion, solidly based on well-sourced content in the body, mostly from the Mueller Report. That context is important, as it otherwise is just an insertion about the Russians, and says little about Trump. His reaction is the most important part, especially in this article. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
mostly from the Mueller Report, why remove the specific for a generalized "investigations"? I also prefer "benefit" to "favor". I'd support shortening the sentence to "benefit Trump's campaign" or "benefit Trump", the purpose being to get him elected. Suggestion:
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump who welcomed and encouraged the interference.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers. Like the Mueller report that preceded it, the report does not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, but it does go further than the Mueller report in detailing the ties found between Trump campaign members and Russian individuals. In particular, it describes Paul Manafort as "a grave counterintelligence threat". According to the report, "some evidence suggests" that Konstantin Kilimnik, to whom Manafort provided polling data, was directly connected to the Russian theft of Clinton-campaign emails. In addition, while Trump's written testimony in the Mueller report stated that he did not recall speaking with Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, the Senate report concludes that "Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions".Andre 🚐 20:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, let's look at what we have so far:
Any other suggestions? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
… to benefit Trump. Trump welcomed and encouraged the interference., based on the fourth paragraph of Special counsel investigation and the RS supporting it? After reading the sources, I’m not sure whether Trump publicly welcoming and encouraging should be based on investigations alone, whether Mueller's or others, because it’s also based on RS reporting on press conferences Trump gave, this one, for example. (SpaceX? Ugh. I believe that moniker is claimed by some rich guy with a bullhorn who thinks he knows more than he does. They also use spacex.com. I’ve looked at abbreviating my signature but haven’t figured out the customization and linking.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump. Trump welcomed and encouraged the interference.It's this version without "campaign" and an additional second sentence on Trump welcoming etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It's been several weeks, since I've fully engaged in any political-based content disputes on this BLP. With the US about 10 days away from its mid-term elections? I'm even more reluctant to take sides. Therefore, concerning the topic-in-question, do what ya'll think is best? GoodDay ( talk) 17:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has a bias of wanting to include items accusing Trump and excluding items that defend Trump, such as the fact that the Mueller investigation and the Senate report did not find that Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to win the election. In any case, my position is that none of this is appropriate for the lead, as discussed in the previous section that this current section has been separated from. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
References
takeaways
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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.
It would be best not to leave this decision (include/exclude) in the hands of a small # of editors. Recommend an RFC be opened on this matter.
GoodDay (
talk) 16:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
small # of editorsmaking any editing decisions no matter what or where? How many editors do you think will constitute a "solid" consensus, and at what point will this guideline of yours bring editing on WP to a crashing halt? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
If this is anything to go by, yes we are at an impasse (or at least a slagging match). What it will do (I hope) is to attract fresh eyes, and we can then those who are arguing will see what the wider community thinks, rather than being told what it thinks. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
the FEW, yet I don't see any input of yours other than some quibbling about lead/lede. If none of the watchers of this page want to get involved in any given discussion why shouldn't the few who are involved find a consensus? Oh, and thanks for thethe proudhere right now
echo chamber, back slapping, cohert[sic]. Civility is always appreciated, not to mention a Wikipedia policy. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Anyone involved (or not involved) in this content dispute, are free to open an RFC. GoodDay ( talk) 21:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
violatedor
ignoredbaffles me. RFCBEFORE says:
Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.
Save RfCs for simple matters (what color to use or which image) where editors are at a split decision and impasse.flies in the face of the " What an RFC is" section itself:
A request for comment (RfC) is a request to the Wikipedia community for comment on an issue. Often, the issue is what an article should say. [...] If, for example, the editors of a certain article cannot agree on whether a certain fact should be included, they can use an RfC to find out what the community thinks and, if a consensus emerges, that usually resolves the dispute.
Launch an RFC or don't launch one, but if no one is willing to do it can we stop talking about it? THis is waisting as much time as an RFC would. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, then you can ask on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments. Which seems completely irrelevant. FeRDNYC ( talk) 05:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.Andre 🚐 05:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Going to 'hat' the recommendation discussion in a few hours. It's been a week now & nobody's chosen to open an RFC. Indeed the discussion on whether or not to open one, has outgrown the topic it would've been about. GoodDay ( talk) 05:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This edit summary says that the cited source attributes the decision-making to the Army. The cited RS also says that he "declar[ed] on Twitter that 'All is well!'", told the press that "some of the troops involved had 'headaches' but that the situation was 'not very serious,'" and that the Trump-appointed defense secretary dragged his feet. [1] [2] Soldiers who were medevaced to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany received Purple Hearts (hard to argue "not very serious" in those cases), dozens of others weren’t. The RS also says that former Pentagon spokeswoman Farrah said that the Trump WH had "leaned on the Defense Department to downplay the attack." The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the president and commander-in-chief. If the word comes down from the top that it was no big deal, you think "Lieutenant General Pat White, the three-star general who oversaw the entire theatre" will stick his neck out and approve 69 purple hearts? CBS says that the commander of the task force stationed at Ain al-Asad air base submitted 56 names of the injured, and only 23 were approved. [3] "'I heard they had headaches and a couple of other things. I can report it is not very serious,' Trump said at a news conference in Davos, Switzerland, arguing that potential traumatic brain injuries are less severe than amputations. … 'I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I’ve seen," Trump said, comparing them to troops losing limbs in combat. "No, I do not consider them bad injuries.'" [1] Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Direct quote: "I’m pleased to inform you: The American people should be extremely grateful and happy no Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Per CBS, soldiers they spoke with believed the decision to be political. "After bringing their concerns up the chain of command, Hansen said he and Fix were told to stop asking about the soldiers who did not receive the Purple Heart. "The messaging I was getting was just the political situation wasn't going to support more approvals," Hansen said. In the October 6 letter, Fix wrote, "I was also directed not to inquire about the remaining awards or resubmit those awards." The soldiers CBS spoke with said after the attack, there was pressure to downplay the growing injuries to avoid a further escalation with Iran and avoid undercutting former President Trump.
USA Today: Dwight Mears, an author, West Point graduate and former history professor at the military academy who researches military medals, said high-level political interference in lower-level medals like the Purple Heart is unusual. Former President Trump shattered that norm.
[4] after reporting that it took the Pentagon a month to even acknowledge that there had been traumatic brain injuries, that 25 soldiers had to be medevaced, and that Trump had said there were no serious injuries. Isn't that sufficient for WP to say that the soldiers were denied the awards because Trump downplayed the injuries?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 13:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The VFW asked Trump to apologize for his "misguided remarks." [5] Instead, he doubled down. [6] Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
References
It just dawned on me that there may be a different issue with this content, so I need to make sure we're understanding Bob K31416 correctly. The NOR matter may be a red herring that distracts from the real issue. Let's see what discussion will reveal.
Bob, you wrote:
Is the issue that the content doesn't belong in this article because it doesn't mention "retaliation" or some synonym? It seems clear that the missiles were retaliation, but maybe the shooting down of 752 was an accident not directly related to retaliation. Is that the reason you're objecting? Maybe it was just an accident related to the heightened tensions caused by Trump's threats. Please explain your thinking without duplicating your arguments above, as they were not clear enough. Content can be relevant because it speaks to the immediate subject in the sentence or paragraph, even if it doesn't mention Trump. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
I looked at the current state of the item and it appears to be synth. It uses one source to say that Trump threatened Iran and follows that with another source to say that the airliner was shot down because of increased tensions between Iran and the US. This implies that the airliner was shot down because of Trump's threats against Iran, a statement that is in neither of the sources. Bob K31416 ( talk) 12:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I don’t like the adverb "accidentally" in this context, and the cited source is dated January 10, 2020, and based on an article from the day before, i.e., before Iran admitted shooting down the jet. The Iranians accidentally shooting down the plane indicates that they didn’t mean to do it - somebody tripped and accidentally hit the red "fire" button. They did it deliberately, however, allegedly mistakenly believing the plane to be "moving in a direction that made it more likely to be a hostile object." Low-level human error, allegedly, after their initial claims that mechanical problems on the plane had caused it to crash. The Guardian reported that missile defense operators, on high alert for American reprisals after the missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq (seems it’s not just the MAGA base who believes every word Trump utters on social media - the genius tweet goading fanatics) had moved a battery earlier in the day and then failed to recalibrate their systems. [1] [2] The radar system was "107 degrees off in detecting the trajectory of the Ukrainian jet, giving one of the missile operators the impression it was moving in a direction that made it more likely to be a hostile object." He, no Vasily Arkhipov, was supposed to obtain authorization before firing, couldn’t get through, and fired without approval. Adding RS saying that Iranians believed the plane to be an American warplane. [3] Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
multiple RS strongly imply a connection(emphasis mine). That is not enough.
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. It is generally believed that Iran brought down the plane by accident, due to heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
Edit conflict. When RS synthesize an implication or a conclusion, we document it. If there is any doubt, we attribute it. We could say that multiple sources[1][2][3] implied that the shooting down of 752 occurred because of the heightened tensions caused by Trump's threat, and one source[4] stated [quote that 180 people died who might not have died]. (That is a very rough paraphrase, so just work out any inaccuracies rather than crucify me.) Use the exact quote. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Are we really jumping thru this many hoops to assuage the objections of a lone user?—this is the wording of indifference. Again—
I agree the current version is fine, or at least not worth all the time and attention—indifference. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be done with a topic, but to argue against it in the first place requires that you stick through till the end.
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, said anything useful. The sentence does not establish a connection between Trump and the flight. The reader has no idea if the flight was brought down due to the heightened tensions or in spite of/during the period of heighterend tensions. We need to actually state something, and we aren't.
Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American intellegence determined that the plane was brought down by accident, likely due to the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.Cessaune ( talk) 00:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is the current version of the airliner item that is in the Wikipedia article. [7]
Although the given sources are RS for the airliner item, they do not appear to mention Trump, so the use of the airliner item is OR per my previous remarks. In general, sources that do not mention Trump should not be used in this article about Trump. Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Bob K31416, what kind of BS is this deletion of content developed after long discussion to resolve a problem YOU pointed out? When all PAG are finally followed, then you delete it? That really looks suspicious. You should have discussed that first. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Cessaune, Here's the RS.
It's an article about the airliner destruction that discusses Trump's culpability. Here's an excerpt that has a part that accuses Trump, which is followed by a part with a different view, which the proposed edit is based on.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
a rebuttal to the accusations about Trump. Cessaune ( talk) 03:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy note since it apparently slipped the OPs mind to do so; Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Trump_bio_—_Iran_mistakenly_shot_down_airliner_II. Zaathras ( talk) 06:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Valjean: Huh? What was wrong with the previous version, as edited by O3000, and why add sources that were written BEFORE Iran admitted that they had shot the plane? Also, it's not an accident when they deliberately shoot it down, never mind that they claim to have thought they were shooting at an American fighter aircraft. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
This section isn't a reboot, it's a repeat of the preceding one. Same editors, same arguments, same proposals, nibbled to death by ducks. Words have consequences, in this case Trump threatening Iran with already having put targets on 52 Iranian sites should they dare to retaliate for Soleimani's killing. They dared, they put their military on high alert, they weren't able to distinguish a passenger jetliner from Chickenman. Trump set the chain of events in motion. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Trump's bluster and unpredictability... almost certainly contributed to the conditions that allowed this grievous mistake to be made.
An item about an airliner in the section Iran violates Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. It is the second part of the following sentence.
The cite that is about the airliner is the first one.
The airliner part of the sentence violates WP:NOR, which states in its first paragraph,"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article..." The given source is not directly related to the topic of the article, which is Trump. Bob K31416 ( talk) 12:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Bob, NOR has nothing to do with this. The content is backed up by the RS, so no OR. Maybe you're thinking of off-topic or coatrack? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
What has that airliner to do with Trump? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Because of DS restrictions, we need a very clear consensus to remove it, so no reverting or removal yet. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Three days after Trump warned Iran not to retaliate for Soleimani's killing, claiming to have targeted 52 Iranian sites "to be hit very fast and very hard," [1] Iran launches ballistic missiles against two U.S. bases in Iraq and shoots down a passenger plane erroneously "identified as a hostile target" because of an allegedly "misaligned radar and an error by an air defence operator". If I were stationed at an "Iranian site" after that Trump announcement, though preferably with a radar that's not misaligned, whatever that means, I might be nervous, too, and err on the side of caution. [2] Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Would it be alright to 'close/hat' this discussion? Since it's been rebooted below?
Please place further discussion in the next section #REBOOT of "Airliner shot down". -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Can’t edit even grammar mistakes like these. Need someone else to. 172.74.203.83 ( talk) 06:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
closing as nitpicking in an attempt to insert
Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE
Dronebogus (
talk) 00:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
Look, I don't support Trump in what he does, but it still wasn't hard for me to notice the bias in this article. Entire paragraphs here are just to talk negatively about him. Wikipedia should only give the facts, and not be loaded with opinion articles. Eric McCrea ( talk) 17:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
|
@ KlayCax: you violated the active arbitration remedies (24-hr BRD cycle) in effect on the main page with this edit, with the misleading edit summary that you were "reverting ... back to the original" when in reality you reverted to the changes you had made to the article. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Partial reversion - reverting the wording of the lead back to the original while adding clarification that the 330 endorsements relate to the *2022 United States elections*. Trump's 2022 endorsements are clearly notable and WP: Due.
including making over 200 political endorsementswas changed to
including making over 330 political endorsementsper ( McGraw, 2022). I also clarified that the "330 endorsements" was referring to the 2022 United States elections in the lead. Since it could be unclear for readers on when he made "330 endorsements".
with the misleading edit summaryI was under the wrongful impression that @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: wasn't objecting to those parts of the edit. I immediately reverted it back after the notification from him. I wasn't being misleading. I misunderstood what he meant. It is now reverted back to the 05:32, 12 November 2022 version by @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers:.
Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.
I objected three times,
here to the change in the lead,
here to the potential 2024 run and Trump’s statements on DeSantis and Youngkin, and
here to the other changes in the post-presidency section, such as moving the "Big Lie" into a new 2022 election section (do you have any sources to support what appears to be your opinion that it had anything to do with the midterms?).
As for WP:DUE for the page … It's remarkably clear that the Republican underperformance is notable for his biography
, why? The sources merely say that "many Republicans blame". He endorsed, but it was the members of the Republican Party who elected the Republican candidates in the primaries (and in the general election in red districts).
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 13:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the status quo ante I reverted to. Not sure why you, KlayCax, reverted to a version I objected to, never mind that you piled your changes onto Iamreallygoodatcheckers's. My edit summary (Not an improvement - pls discuss these changes on the Talk page. Trump wasn't running for office in 2022, the blame game has only begun, and some election results are still pending) applied to the end product. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Seems to me that this top bio doesn’t need more than the short status quo ante version (Trump’s endorsement were mostly seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections) with the add-on "but many of them lost in the general election". Put the rest in Republican Party (United States) and/or 2022 United States elections. Trump beginning to "jab" DeSantis and Youngkin belongs in the newspapers, not in an encyclopedia. 3RR prevents me from reverting. I’m not sure whether KlayCax’s edit falls under the 24-hr BRD cycle since they now re-reverted to a version they had built upon and I had objected to. If it doesn’t violate the letter, it violates the spirit, IMO, reverting instead of discussing. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Many of Trump's endorsements were inexperienced and underperformed in the general election, which led many Republicans to blame Trump for the lackluster performance of the Republican Party in the 2022 midterms and question whether he should continue as the leader of the party. [1] [2] Following the election, Trump began jabbing Ron DeSantis and Glenn Youngkin, potential challengers in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. [3] [4]
but many of them lost in the general electionis not sufficient enough. It needs to be understood that many RS and fellow Republicans are blaming Trump for his endorsements in key races that lost. That is significant because it's putting Trump in a predicament that may be devastating to his political standing in his party. Surely that warrants one sentence in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 00:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
may bedevastating. It's speculation at this point. After the January 6, 2021, insurrection, Republicans initially blamed Trump, then, "just a few weeks later, [were] already singing a different tune". Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
References
It's not proven that our president invited the people 174.251.135.96 ( talk) 03:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Reading over the precedence of contention regarding the basics of the lead, I have a feeling that the inclusion of mentioning the recent 2024 campaign announcement might be up for comment. I generally support it, given that it is safe to assume Trump's elevated political activity and involvement is a theme sufficiently active enough to merit including at least the basis for including mentions of further presidential campaign activity; admittedly, the subject of what goes in and what doesn't probably deserves discussion from those far more versed on the discussion than I am.
So I'm posting just to clear it and make note of it for archival's sake, because maybe the wording could use tweaking and as the campaign situation evolves, so will consensus on it emerge (probably forcing terms of the campaign's inclusion in the lead to be enshrined in the huge consensus list posted up there in the talk). Better to act cautiously ‒ overthrows 04:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
References
I added the sentence above within the Post-presidency (2021–present) >> FBI investigation subsection ( User:Nerguy added the counsel's name, thank you!)
But it doesn't fit. The special counsel (SC) was not appointed as part of the probe on the classified docs, he was appointed to centralize all federal probes, including ones regarding Trump's involvement in January 6th (if I'm reading news reports correctly).
Where should we put this, and how should we phrase it?
I considered putting it under Post-presidency (2021–present) >> 2024 presidential campaign, but then it may imply to some readers that the SC was political retaliation on Biden's part; I actually think explaining the reason for the SC's formation (to make the probes independent from the Biden admin, and avoid any accusations of impropriety) would be a good idea, but we'd need to agree on the wording; that explanation would ideally be very brief, just a few words. DFlhb ( talk) 22:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I know this has discussed before, but no resolution was ever brought forth. This article has some of the most insignificant things possible about Trump's foreign policy, such as him hypothetically saying he would strike back at Iran after they struck U.S. troops in Iraq (a hypothetical that never became reality) yet it doesn't have the most major treaty negotiated under him in 2020? Israel's peace with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco was hailed as significant by numerous international observers, far more than say a single quote from one American journalist saying that Trump was to blame for Iran's shooting of an airliner. The page has an insane amount of fluff, yet something substantial can't fit in? Bill Williams 14:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
As someone uninvolved with previous discussions, I don't see a strong reason why a simple mention of the Accords shouldn't be included in the Foreign Policy section, as it stands. Trying to parse old discussions to see what points had been made, this is what I found:
Honestly, based on all of that, I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude a minor mention of these accords in this article. The 'Foreign Policy' section in this article is quite extensive already; seems odd to draw the WP:UNDUE line in the sand here. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
It's too absurd that people are saying this deal has a negligible impact, and as a result we shouldn't mentioned it. We must add this section and maybe we can mention what was the impact of it in two years later. I didn't know that Wikipedia editors have to judge the actions as well! you're here to tell the truth, it's up to the readers to decide. Unfortunately it seems that Wikipedia political articles are controlled by the same editors in the mainstream media trying to hide or undermine Trump's achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaka123 ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I also added info on Morocco and Sudan, since it was a major change in U.S., Moroccan, and Sudanese foreign policy. Sudan was under heavy sanctions until it was removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list before it normalized relations with Israel, while Moroccan control over Western Sahara was recognized by almost no country until the U.S. did so. Morocco also received billions in additional arms sales while it and Sudan both engaged in economic and tourist agreements with Israel in response to the normalization. Considering the restriction of travel on Sudan was already mentioned in the article, and that had far less of an effect than the crippling sanctions on the nation, while other disputed territory recognition was mentioned as well, I think it is my addition is warranted for inclusion. Bill Williams 02:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Kobra98, you added current equivalents to various dollar amounts, stating that "converting dollar amounts for inflation gives context to readers." Is that context readers need or want, 'though? What they lose is the cites for the sentences since the template adds its own cites. E.g., the cite for the first two sentences of Donald_Trump#Wealth is the one after the second sentence. With the addition of the template, it looks as though the American Antiquarian Society PDFs are the cites for the sentence. Sure, we could fix that by adding the actual cite to the first sentence, too, but do we need to know the current equivalents of hundreds of millions of dollars? Kudos for developing that template, but a better place for it would be the main article Wealth of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm a reader who can't relate to $562 million any better than to $200 million. In one of the sentences the equivalent doesn't even make sense: In 1995, his reported losses were $915.7 million (equivalent to $1.63 billion in 2021).
Trump received a tax credit for $915.7 million, and he offset that amount against taxes due for almost 20 years, never mind equivalents due to inflation.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Would it be better to place 2024, underneath the Post-presidency (2021–present) section where it was originally was? The articles events seem to run in chronological order with the 2024 presidental campaign now in the middle and all of Trump's presidency and his policies are now underneath it. Aaron106 ( talk) 02:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a "comparison section" that showed any possible similarities between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 09:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Should we link to the former president's truth social account page? Since he is currently actively tweeting from there instead of twitter and is now a presidential candidate again, seems like something worthy of mention. Saw a similar thread above about his twitter link, so feel free to merge this with that if deemed appropriate. 23.84.19.247 ( talk) 23:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the lead section has two citations for the "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history" sentence. However, both of these citations are repeated in the body (the "Approval ratings and scholar surveys" section in particular), which would make the citations redundant. Mucube ( talk) 01:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
"There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations."
"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.(emphasis not mine). Also, the hidden note is definitely appropriate and shouldn't be removed as I'd imagine that particular sentence would have a tendency of being removed without those removing it realising it's supported by consensus. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 01:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I know that the lead is long and that there is a discussion going on right now over whether or not it is biased, but if we can discuss bias at length perhaps we could discuss something that has bothered me for a long time. Please see our article Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. What do you think, should we mention it in the lead? Sectionworker ( talk) 14:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Would this be OK? During his time in office Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife. Sectionworker ( talk) 20:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.Internal U.S. policies and regulations (
rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife) are a different matter, and the Biden administration got to work on undoing them right after Biden's inauguration { January 20, 2021, Executive Order). How about
He rolled back environmental policies and regulations, 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.in the fourth paragraph? IMO, the rest is too much detail for the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, okay.
This article is too long to not have more blue in the lead. This extreme 'no blue in the lead' stance that has been taken here minimizes efficiency. Regardless of how controversial any specific statement is, some statements are deserving of a little blue because they are inherently complicated or interesting, IMHO.
I want to open an RfC about this. An article this big requires more blue in the lead, if not solely for the purpose of helping readers navigate. What do y'all think? Cessaune ( talk) 00:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
So since his twitter page was just restored, should we include a link to it in the "External Links" section, like we had before his twitter page was suspended? I noticed that the link to the archive requires consensus to change. 08:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Mgasparin ( talk) 08:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
"I like Elon, but I’m staying on Truth," Mr. Trump said during a Fox News interview after Mr. Musk’s takeover. ... Mr. Trump is obligated to make his posts available exclusively on Truth Social for six hours before sharing them on other sites, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He can post to any site immediately if the messages pertain to political messaging, fund-raising, or get-out-the-vote initiatives.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the twitter page link. I have also kept the link to the archive, since as DFlhb stated, many tweets were deleted over the course of his presidency. Mgasparin ( talk) 22:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"reacted slowly to the COVID-19 Pandemic" is an opinionated statement and should be changed, especially with the development of the vaccine and democrats calling his border closing xenophobic. Nkienzle ( talk) 05:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template. (please note that most paragraphs in the lead of this article are established by longstanding consensus.)
Colonestarrice (
talk) 06:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe there is previous consensus on any of these. These proposals each stand on their own, and are not mutually exclusive, so please weigh in on each.
Proposal A: remove the following external link:
It now a redirect to a donation page.
Proposal B: remove the following external link:
I see no reason to elevate the NYT's coverage above others. This link merely shows recent articles about Trump; it's not a fancy visualization, or deep-dive, or a single page that seeks to seriously evaluate Trump's record. This link also violates WP:ELREG since these articles require a subscription to view.
Proposal C: remove the following external link:
I don't see the dueness of this. This links to a nonprofit project that interviews prominent and non-prominent figures in the television industry. There seem to be only 17 interviews, each with an average length of only two minutes. I see no encyclopedic or historical value. If we have an article on celebrities' views of Donald Trump, this would belong there. DFlhb ( talk) 21:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)