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 150 | ← | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | → | Archive 160 |
Jerome Frank Disciple, I don't think that we need to say that but meh. The bigger problem in this long article was the additional cite. BTW, except for Obama, the articles on other presidents also don't mention the announcement. The first African-American candidate was historic, golden escalator — not so much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Collapsing as redundant and superseded by the
multi-part proposal below. Please participate there! And read this only if you need more background on the discussion/dispute.—
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
When I
originally added the sentence about the civil trial between Carroll and Trump today, it included that the jury found Trump not liable for rape, which is true and identified by reliable sources.
NPR: To respond to the two claims made here. (1) Trump being found not liable for rape is a verifiable fact that is covered by reliable sources (as demonstrated with the sources above). This was part of the verdict in the same way as him being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. A jury finding someone not liable for something doesn't make something less mentionable in an article. (2) It absolutely is not a NPOV violation to include this clause; in fact, quite the contrary, it is a NPOV and BLP violation to not mention this along side the rest of the verdict by the jury. How could it be considered neutral for us to willfully ignore one part of the verdict and include another? This comes across as POV cherry-picking of facts to make this appear worse for Trump. A neutral article should include both what he was found liable for and what he wasn't found liable for. In the same way, it would violate the NPOV to say Trump was not found liable for rape, but exclude that he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It does give undue weight to not put that Trump was not found guilty of rape by the jury. Also, Specifico, to be honest, I highly doubt people read the references these days, so the other part of the story should be mentioned. Though wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet, it should cover the other side of the story. Not wanting to offend. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes we mention it all. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
In light of the BLP concerns raised above, I've re-added the explanation to the article [1] ( relevant subsection, which, I should point out, is only four sentences). I believe our WP:NOCON policy suggests that when a BLP concern is raised, the article text should be modified to the "safe" version until the BLP discussion is resolved. (In the event of content that arguably violates BLP, that means exclusion pending discussion, and I think it follows that omission arguably violating BLP yields inclusion pending discussion.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You're unilaterally deciding that there's no BLP problem, but there's a dispute—other editors, including @
Iamreallygoodatcheckers,
Anythingyouwant, and
DFlhb:, have said it is. And, I'm sorry, what's the argument that including the full verdict creates a BLP problem? Here's the text of what was there—I'm actually a bit fascinated to know how it presents a BLP issue. [Moved below].
The way this is headed, I imagine an RFC is on the horizon, and we should probably notify BLP noticeboard, too, particularly as to the question of what the article should say in the interim. Per WP:NOCON, given that the inclusion of just part of the jury verdict has been called a BLP issue, and you're (apparently?) saying the inclusion of the full verdict is a BLP issue, then we should remove any mention of the jury verdict while the discussion is resolved.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed text (long version)
Original version 1
Original short version
Version before the above "proposed text"Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) References
Quote from jury findingFor editors who advocate "adding the full jury decision". Please consider whether the article text should add the following jury finding about Trump's action, that he acted
Opinions
Obviously an encyclopedia can not be perfectly neutral when thousands of people edit it and hash out their opinions/views on talk pages like these. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 20:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Additional discussion
Following the actual verdictThe actual verdict states, as CBS News describes: In the jury's verdict form, in response to the first question, "Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll," the jury said, "no," but it answered "yes" to the next question posed, about whether he had sexually abused her. The jury found that Carroll had been harmed as a result of Trump's actions, and that $2 million would "fairly and adequately" compensate her for those injuries. It also answered "yes" to the question about whether Trump had defamed Carroll and said nearly $3 million should be given to Carroll for damages. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The below is a digression given that no one is arguing this info is DUE here.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This page has really been whitewashed to remove this civil lawsuit which determined that Trump sexually abused her from this page. A single user has removed this entirely, which nobody else on this talk page is suggesting. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 19:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
|
Hello! I wanted to bring this up on the talk page before editing, because I assume it'll be controversial.
I'm a little skeptical of this line, in the Dergulation subsection:
Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".
The line is cited to a Time magazine op ed, which I have no problem with.
Full disclosure, I'm ... generally ... a fan of a strong executive/admin state (very context dependent), so I'm arguing against my own pov here, but I'm not sure this line should be here unchecked—I think there's an WP:NPOV issue. For full context, here's the full subsection (citations omitted):
In January 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which directed that, for every new regulation, federal agencies "identify" two existing regulations for elimination, though it did not require elimination. He dismantled many federal regulations on health, labor, and the environment, among other topics. Trump signed 14 Congressional Review Act resolutions repealing federal regulations, including a bill that made it easier for severely mentally ill persons to buy guns. During his first six weeks in office, he delayed, suspended, or reversed ninety federal regulations, often "after requests by the regulated industries". The Institute for Policy Integrity found that 78 percent of Trump's proposals were blocked by courts or did not prevail over litigation.
Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".
Here's the problem: everything before that line is just a description of what Trump did. There's not effort at providing the underlying theory behind those actions. So, the subsection is, in effect, "Trump did X. Here's a theoretical critique of X." But there many theoretical critiques of the administrative state—arguments that the administrative state is bloated and unaccountable, etc. (In case anyone needs a source—they're easy to find: Here's one defense of Trump's plan to deconstruct the administrative state by David French.)
I'm not sure if a theoretical discussion is really worth including in the article at all—as a first choice, I'd support just deleting that ultimate sentence, but if we're going to include the theoretical critique, we should probably also include the theoretical justification.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
"Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year awaya vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months."
Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020. Be better, Bob. Zaathras ( talk) 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
"Donald Trump probably doesn't know the difference between a white cell and a prison cell, but the administration got this right"which makes it pretty clear that any praise and/or credit is not aimed at Trump, but the administration, and Biden does the same -
"I think the administration deserves some credit getting this off the ground with Operation Warp Speed"- neither credit Trump personally with anything:
Trump held out the promise of a vaccine as part of his reelection strategy, but his very public bluster appears to have done very little to influence the actual processand so on. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This point has got its response, rebuttal and recognition and is ripe for closure. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday. "You won’t have a vaccine," corrected Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar after some cross talk. "You’ll have a vaccine to go into testing." "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.I've just amended our phrasing to
a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away. (Bob, for the umpteenth time, Pfizer/BioNTech were not part of the U.S. "crash program".) Lights, do you have a reliable source that contradicts this description of events? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Trump claimed that a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months.
"Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year,' Trump tweeted on Thursday.
After receiving an answer, Trump followed up, "“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday.
All right, so you’re talking within a year."
[f]rom my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to flag that, in the discussion of Trump's airline foray, there's a failed verification issue. The line is:
Trump failed to earn a profit with the airline and sold it to USAir.
It's cited to this article: a WaPo fact check. But the WaPo article doesn't mention USAir (or US Airways). It does link to a Daily Beast article, but I actually can't tell if Trump himself sold the airway to USAir based on that article. It says:
By the middle of 1991, it was clear that the situation was not going to improve; Trump had raised $380 million from a syndicate of 22 banks led by Citicorp, putting in just $20 million of his own money. But the airline was just one of a cluster of assets that were at stake; and Trump finally hammered out a deal that gave bankers control of the airline; the climate was turned so sour that no bidders came forward to buy it. US Airways was later tapped to run it and by mid-1992, the plus-size “T” logos on the planes were replaced by more conventional airline livery.
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I saw @ SPECIFICO: reverted me here and asked that I get consensus for this change, so I figured best to bring this to the talk page.
I'd like to discuss this sentence in the article
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym " John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 to falsely assert that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
I noticed a few things about that sentence: First, having read the source, let's be clear: Greenberg was saying that Trump falsely made a claim to him. The point wasn't what Trump intended to do on the call. As such "Trump called him to falsely assert" is unfortunately ambiguous, and it's probably better stated that Trump called him and falsely asserted the info. Second, the double "to X" in the sentence makes the sentence, in my opinion, a bit awkwardly constructed. As such, I suggested:
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym " John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 and, to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business.
Admittedly, I still don't love that wording. A bit more radically, I might say:
In 2018, journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported on a 1984 call he had with Trump, who was using the pseudonym " John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official. According to Greenberg, Trump falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business in order to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
Any thoughts?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
As it stands, the current wording is really difficult to parse. I had to read it several times to actually understand what claims are being made. And, as a scientist/physician, I guarantee I regularly read more dense and strange jargon on a daily basis than the average Wikipedia-reader. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, during a phone call with Greeberg in 1984, used the pseudonym " John Barron" and claimed to be a Trump Organization official. Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
Greenberg said that Trump falsely asserted that he (Trump) ...."? Not super important to me either way; your call.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
What? Huh? I think I just simplified and clarified that sentence without the use of a stake. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The most recent change is not an improvement. Please continue to use this talk thread instead of jumping into the article, where revert rules and other needless complications are forced.
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, introducing himself as the fictitious Trump Organization offical "John Barron". Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
that's better, but there are many similar improvements that could be made. See how it's described on the John Barron page. Also, there's no reason to confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and, to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business.
Hello! @ SPECIFICO, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Shibbolethink: Below, User:SPECIFICO said (and I replied):
confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. I asked what you meant by that, above, and you didn't respond. This is, inherently, only Greenberg's experience that we're talking about. Also, we should probably discuss this ... in the section discussing Greenberg, above.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I thought it would make the most sense to move that discussion here.
After reverting SPECIFICO, I did offer a separated version that I'd agree to, if the only contention is that the sentence is too long and should be broken up: [13] Thoughts?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named " John Barron". Greenberg said that Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that he owned more than 90 percent of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x ... could you elaborate on this edit? I added "but" to transition from the period in which he was declared eligible to the period in which he was declared not eligible—just as I would say (in theory) "He won the 2016 election, but lost in 2020." How is that editorializing? Did you flag it just because of the word but? "But" doesn't always indicate editorializing. And if you're not okay with "but" there, are you okay with the following uses currently in the article:
Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization.
Trump has called golfing his "primary form of exercise" but usually does not walk the course.
During the 1980s, more than 70 banks had lent Trump $4 billion,[122] but in the aftermath of his corporate bankruptcies of the early 1990s, most major banks declined to lend to him, with only Deutsche Bank still willing to lend money.
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
In 2000, Trump ran in the California and Michigan primaries for nomination as the Reform Party candidate for the 2000 United States presidential election but withdrew from the race in February 2000.
When you use it to begin a sentence, you’re putting emphasis on it.Where does MOS:OP-ED say that? But okay, I can abide by your personal "compound sentences are more neutral" rule.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Terrific, putting the emphasis right back in by
connecting two independent clauses with "but" and then
splitting off the the third independent clause as "overlong". Way to cooperate. As with many writing “rules,” the truth is that beginning with but isn’t about wrong or right; it’s about
formality, emphasis, and style.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while .... The article currently says:
However, no denuclearization agreement was reached, and talks in October 2019 broke down after one day.(starts a paragraph!)
Despite a campaign promise to eliminate the national debt in eight years, Trump approved large increases in government spending and the 2017 tax cut.(same)
Despite record numbers of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. from mid-June onward and an increasing percentage of positive test results, Trump largely continued to downplay the pandemic, including his false claim in early July 2020 that 99 percent of COVID-19 cases are "totally harmless".
Despite the frequency of Trump's falsehoods, the media rarely referred to them as lies.
Despite "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign", the report found that the prevailing evidence "did not establish" that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference.
Though Trump said he would eschew "new foreign deals", the Trump Organization pursued expansions of its operations in Dubai, Scotland, and the Dominican Republic.
Although Trump originally argued that the separations could not be stopped by an executive order, he accceded to intense public objection and signed an executive order on June 20, 2018, mandating that migrant families be detained together unless "there is a concern" doing so would pose a risk to the child.(starts a paragraph)
While Trump has not filed for personal bankruptcy, his over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection six times between 1991 and 2009.
Terrific, putting the emphasis right back in by connecting two independent clauses with "but"... wait, what? I'm sorry, now you're saying compound sentences (which, yes, connect two independent clauses with a conjunction) can't use "but", per MOS:OP-ED?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. I asked what you meant by that, above, and you didn't respond. This is, inherently, only Greenberg's experience that we're talking about. Also, we should probably discuss this ... in the section discussing Greenberg, above.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] In October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] But in October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and, in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve,[12] but, in October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment.[13] In 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] In October 1968, however, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and, in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]
I feel like it's worth mentioning that Trump was the oldest elected president until Biden's election in 2020. At age 70 in 2016, Trump surpassed the previous record-holder, Ronald Reagan (age 69 on Election Day 1980). Given how much attention presidential ages have gotten in recent years, both among office holders and candidates, I would think this little factoid deserves an insertion somewhere in the article, to give context to such a hotly debated issue, especially with President Biden's recently announced reelection bid. Age was even brought up as an issue with John McCain (age 72) back in the 2008 election. In both the 2016 and 2020 elections (and likely the 2024 election as well), all major candidates were above age 69, with Hillary Clinton turning 69 only days before the 2016 election, Donald Trump at 70 in 2016 and 74 in 2020 (and 78 in 2024), and Joe Biden at 77 in 2020 (and 81 in 2024). A lot of emphasis is placed on Biden's age and practically none on Trump's when in reality, Trump and Biden are less than 4 years apart! They could've attended the same high school together for goodness sake! In fact, although Biden holds the current record for oldest serving and oldest elected president, if Trump wins in 2024 and serves all four years, he will retake the records on both accounts! Four years to men who've roamed the earth nigh on four score represents about 5% of their life spans! Fair's fair. If one is attacked for his age, so should the other. Perspective, people. Just thought someone could edit it in since the article is locked. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 07:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
low-importance informationthat
seems like a bad use of space, to quote another editor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I also agree this is not trivial information when covered by so many sources. I support consensus to add this. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 20:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
How is this situation handled at the Ronald Reagan page? Concerning when he held the oldest-serving US president record. GoodDay ( talk) 20:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
BLP speculation not based on RS. "It has often been claimed..." and then repeating a partisan attack meme is not constructive and will not lead to any article content improvements here. Don't do this. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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 150 | ← | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | → | Archive 160 |
Jerome Frank Disciple, I don't think that we need to say that but meh. The bigger problem in this long article was the additional cite. BTW, except for Obama, the articles on other presidents also don't mention the announcement. The first African-American candidate was historic, golden escalator — not so much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Collapsing as redundant and superseded by the
multi-part proposal below. Please participate there! And read this only if you need more background on the discussion/dispute.—
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
When I
originally added the sentence about the civil trial between Carroll and Trump today, it included that the jury found Trump not liable for rape, which is true and identified by reliable sources.
NPR: To respond to the two claims made here. (1) Trump being found not liable for rape is a verifiable fact that is covered by reliable sources (as demonstrated with the sources above). This was part of the verdict in the same way as him being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. A jury finding someone not liable for something doesn't make something less mentionable in an article. (2) It absolutely is not a NPOV violation to include this clause; in fact, quite the contrary, it is a NPOV and BLP violation to not mention this along side the rest of the verdict by the jury. How could it be considered neutral for us to willfully ignore one part of the verdict and include another? This comes across as POV cherry-picking of facts to make this appear worse for Trump. A neutral article should include both what he was found liable for and what he wasn't found liable for. In the same way, it would violate the NPOV to say Trump was not found liable for rape, but exclude that he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It does give undue weight to not put that Trump was not found guilty of rape by the jury. Also, Specifico, to be honest, I highly doubt people read the references these days, so the other part of the story should be mentioned. Though wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet, it should cover the other side of the story. Not wanting to offend. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes we mention it all. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
In light of the BLP concerns raised above, I've re-added the explanation to the article [1] ( relevant subsection, which, I should point out, is only four sentences). I believe our WP:NOCON policy suggests that when a BLP concern is raised, the article text should be modified to the "safe" version until the BLP discussion is resolved. (In the event of content that arguably violates BLP, that means exclusion pending discussion, and I think it follows that omission arguably violating BLP yields inclusion pending discussion.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You're unilaterally deciding that there's no BLP problem, but there's a dispute—other editors, including @
Iamreallygoodatcheckers,
Anythingyouwant, and
DFlhb:, have said it is. And, I'm sorry, what's the argument that including the full verdict creates a BLP problem? Here's the text of what was there—I'm actually a bit fascinated to know how it presents a BLP issue. [Moved below].
The way this is headed, I imagine an RFC is on the horizon, and we should probably notify BLP noticeboard, too, particularly as to the question of what the article should say in the interim. Per WP:NOCON, given that the inclusion of just part of the jury verdict has been called a BLP issue, and you're (apparently?) saying the inclusion of the full verdict is a BLP issue, then we should remove any mention of the jury verdict while the discussion is resolved.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed text (long version)
Original version 1
Original short version
Version before the above "proposed text"Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) References
Quote from jury findingFor editors who advocate "adding the full jury decision". Please consider whether the article text should add the following jury finding about Trump's action, that he acted
Opinions
Obviously an encyclopedia can not be perfectly neutral when thousands of people edit it and hash out their opinions/views on talk pages like these. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 20:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Additional discussion
Following the actual verdictThe actual verdict states, as CBS News describes: In the jury's verdict form, in response to the first question, "Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll," the jury said, "no," but it answered "yes" to the next question posed, about whether he had sexually abused her. The jury found that Carroll had been harmed as a result of Trump's actions, and that $2 million would "fairly and adequately" compensate her for those injuries. It also answered "yes" to the question about whether Trump had defamed Carroll and said nearly $3 million should be given to Carroll for damages. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The below is a digression given that no one is arguing this info is DUE here.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This page has really been whitewashed to remove this civil lawsuit which determined that Trump sexually abused her from this page. A single user has removed this entirely, which nobody else on this talk page is suggesting. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 19:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
|
Hello! I wanted to bring this up on the talk page before editing, because I assume it'll be controversial.
I'm a little skeptical of this line, in the Dergulation subsection:
Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".
The line is cited to a Time magazine op ed, which I have no problem with.
Full disclosure, I'm ... generally ... a fan of a strong executive/admin state (very context dependent), so I'm arguing against my own pov here, but I'm not sure this line should be here unchecked—I think there's an WP:NPOV issue. For full context, here's the full subsection (citations omitted):
In January 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which directed that, for every new regulation, federal agencies "identify" two existing regulations for elimination, though it did not require elimination. He dismantled many federal regulations on health, labor, and the environment, among other topics. Trump signed 14 Congressional Review Act resolutions repealing federal regulations, including a bill that made it easier for severely mentally ill persons to buy guns. During his first six weeks in office, he delayed, suspended, or reversed ninety federal regulations, often "after requests by the regulated industries". The Institute for Policy Integrity found that 78 percent of Trump's proposals were blocked by courts or did not prevail over litigation.
Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".
Here's the problem: everything before that line is just a description of what Trump did. There's not effort at providing the underlying theory behind those actions. So, the subsection is, in effect, "Trump did X. Here's a theoretical critique of X." But there many theoretical critiques of the administrative state—arguments that the administrative state is bloated and unaccountable, etc. (In case anyone needs a source—they're easy to find: Here's one defense of Trump's plan to deconstruct the administrative state by David French.)
I'm not sure if a theoretical discussion is really worth including in the article at all—as a first choice, I'd support just deleting that ultimate sentence, but if we're going to include the theoretical critique, we should probably also include the theoretical justification.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
"Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year awaya vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months."
Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020. Be better, Bob. Zaathras ( talk) 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
"Donald Trump probably doesn't know the difference between a white cell and a prison cell, but the administration got this right"which makes it pretty clear that any praise and/or credit is not aimed at Trump, but the administration, and Biden does the same -
"I think the administration deserves some credit getting this off the ground with Operation Warp Speed"- neither credit Trump personally with anything:
Trump held out the promise of a vaccine as part of his reelection strategy, but his very public bluster appears to have done very little to influence the actual processand so on. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This point has got its response, rebuttal and recognition and is ripe for closure. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday. "You won’t have a vaccine," corrected Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar after some cross talk. "You’ll have a vaccine to go into testing." "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.I've just amended our phrasing to
a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away. (Bob, for the umpteenth time, Pfizer/BioNTech were not part of the U.S. "crash program".) Lights, do you have a reliable source that contradicts this description of events? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Trump claimed that a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months.
"Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year,' Trump tweeted on Thursday.
After receiving an answer, Trump followed up, "“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday.
All right, so you’re talking within a year."
[f]rom my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to flag that, in the discussion of Trump's airline foray, there's a failed verification issue. The line is:
Trump failed to earn a profit with the airline and sold it to USAir.
It's cited to this article: a WaPo fact check. But the WaPo article doesn't mention USAir (or US Airways). It does link to a Daily Beast article, but I actually can't tell if Trump himself sold the airway to USAir based on that article. It says:
By the middle of 1991, it was clear that the situation was not going to improve; Trump had raised $380 million from a syndicate of 22 banks led by Citicorp, putting in just $20 million of his own money. But the airline was just one of a cluster of assets that were at stake; and Trump finally hammered out a deal that gave bankers control of the airline; the climate was turned so sour that no bidders came forward to buy it. US Airways was later tapped to run it and by mid-1992, the plus-size “T” logos on the planes were replaced by more conventional airline livery.
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I saw @ SPECIFICO: reverted me here and asked that I get consensus for this change, so I figured best to bring this to the talk page.
I'd like to discuss this sentence in the article
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym " John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 to falsely assert that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
I noticed a few things about that sentence: First, having read the source, let's be clear: Greenberg was saying that Trump falsely made a claim to him. The point wasn't what Trump intended to do on the call. As such "Trump called him to falsely assert" is unfortunately ambiguous, and it's probably better stated that Trump called him and falsely asserted the info. Second, the double "to X" in the sentence makes the sentence, in my opinion, a bit awkwardly constructed. As such, I suggested:
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym " John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 and, to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business.
Admittedly, I still don't love that wording. A bit more radically, I might say:
In 2018, journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported on a 1984 call he had with Trump, who was using the pseudonym " John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official. According to Greenberg, Trump falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business in order to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
Any thoughts?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
As it stands, the current wording is really difficult to parse. I had to read it several times to actually understand what claims are being made. And, as a scientist/physician, I guarantee I regularly read more dense and strange jargon on a daily basis than the average Wikipedia-reader. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, during a phone call with Greeberg in 1984, used the pseudonym " John Barron" and claimed to be a Trump Organization official. Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
Greenberg said that Trump falsely asserted that he (Trump) ...."? Not super important to me either way; your call.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
What? Huh? I think I just simplified and clarified that sentence without the use of a stake. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The most recent change is not an improvement. Please continue to use this talk thread instead of jumping into the article, where revert rules and other needless complications are forced.
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, introducing himself as the fictitious Trump Organization offical "John Barron". Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
that's better, but there are many similar improvements that could be made. See how it's described on the John Barron page. Also, there's no reason to confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and, to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business.
Hello! @ SPECIFICO, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Shibbolethink: Below, User:SPECIFICO said (and I replied):
confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. I asked what you meant by that, above, and you didn't respond. This is, inherently, only Greenberg's experience that we're talking about. Also, we should probably discuss this ... in the section discussing Greenberg, above.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I thought it would make the most sense to move that discussion here.
After reverting SPECIFICO, I did offer a separated version that I'd agree to, if the only contention is that the sentence is too long and should be broken up: [13] Thoughts?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named " John Barron". Greenberg said that Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that he owned more than 90 percent of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x ... could you elaborate on this edit? I added "but" to transition from the period in which he was declared eligible to the period in which he was declared not eligible—just as I would say (in theory) "He won the 2016 election, but lost in 2020." How is that editorializing? Did you flag it just because of the word but? "But" doesn't always indicate editorializing. And if you're not okay with "but" there, are you okay with the following uses currently in the article:
Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization.
Trump has called golfing his "primary form of exercise" but usually does not walk the course.
During the 1980s, more than 70 banks had lent Trump $4 billion,[122] but in the aftermath of his corporate bankruptcies of the early 1990s, most major banks declined to lend to him, with only Deutsche Bank still willing to lend money.
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
In 2000, Trump ran in the California and Michigan primaries for nomination as the Reform Party candidate for the 2000 United States presidential election but withdrew from the race in February 2000.
When you use it to begin a sentence, you’re putting emphasis on it.Where does MOS:OP-ED say that? But okay, I can abide by your personal "compound sentences are more neutral" rule.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Terrific, putting the emphasis right back in by
connecting two independent clauses with "but" and then
splitting off the the third independent clause as "overlong". Way to cooperate. As with many writing “rules,” the truth is that beginning with but isn’t about wrong or right; it’s about
formality, emphasis, and style.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while .... The article currently says:
However, no denuclearization agreement was reached, and talks in October 2019 broke down after one day.(starts a paragraph!)
Despite a campaign promise to eliminate the national debt in eight years, Trump approved large increases in government spending and the 2017 tax cut.(same)
Despite record numbers of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. from mid-June onward and an increasing percentage of positive test results, Trump largely continued to downplay the pandemic, including his false claim in early July 2020 that 99 percent of COVID-19 cases are "totally harmless".
Despite the frequency of Trump's falsehoods, the media rarely referred to them as lies.
Despite "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign", the report found that the prevailing evidence "did not establish" that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference.
Though Trump said he would eschew "new foreign deals", the Trump Organization pursued expansions of its operations in Dubai, Scotland, and the Dominican Republic.
Although Trump originally argued that the separations could not be stopped by an executive order, he accceded to intense public objection and signed an executive order on June 20, 2018, mandating that migrant families be detained together unless "there is a concern" doing so would pose a risk to the child.(starts a paragraph)
While Trump has not filed for personal bankruptcy, his over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection six times between 1991 and 2009.
Terrific, putting the emphasis right back in by connecting two independent clauses with "but"... wait, what? I'm sorry, now you're saying compound sentences (which, yes, connect two independent clauses with a conjunction) can't use "but", per MOS:OP-ED?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. I asked what you meant by that, above, and you didn't respond. This is, inherently, only Greenberg's experience that we're talking about. Also, we should probably discuss this ... in the section discussing Greenberg, above.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] In October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] But in October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and, in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve,[12] but, in October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment.[13] In 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] In October 1968, however, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and, in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]
I feel like it's worth mentioning that Trump was the oldest elected president until Biden's election in 2020. At age 70 in 2016, Trump surpassed the previous record-holder, Ronald Reagan (age 69 on Election Day 1980). Given how much attention presidential ages have gotten in recent years, both among office holders and candidates, I would think this little factoid deserves an insertion somewhere in the article, to give context to such a hotly debated issue, especially with President Biden's recently announced reelection bid. Age was even brought up as an issue with John McCain (age 72) back in the 2008 election. In both the 2016 and 2020 elections (and likely the 2024 election as well), all major candidates were above age 69, with Hillary Clinton turning 69 only days before the 2016 election, Donald Trump at 70 in 2016 and 74 in 2020 (and 78 in 2024), and Joe Biden at 77 in 2020 (and 81 in 2024). A lot of emphasis is placed on Biden's age and practically none on Trump's when in reality, Trump and Biden are less than 4 years apart! They could've attended the same high school together for goodness sake! In fact, although Biden holds the current record for oldest serving and oldest elected president, if Trump wins in 2024 and serves all four years, he will retake the records on both accounts! Four years to men who've roamed the earth nigh on four score represents about 5% of their life spans! Fair's fair. If one is attacked for his age, so should the other. Perspective, people. Just thought someone could edit it in since the article is locked. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 07:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
low-importance informationthat
seems like a bad use of space, to quote another editor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I also agree this is not trivial information when covered by so many sources. I support consensus to add this. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 20:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
How is this situation handled at the Ronald Reagan page? Concerning when he held the oldest-serving US president record. GoodDay ( talk) 20:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
BLP speculation not based on RS. "It has often been claimed..." and then repeating a partisan attack meme is not constructive and will not lead to any article content improvements here. Don't do this. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|