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 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | → | Archive 168 |
Trump has proposed a tuition-free online "American Academy" to be funded by taxing university endowments (apparently to be started if he gets elected president). I think this should be briefly mentioned. See https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/donald-trump-wants-government-fund-another-trump-university, https://www.newsweek.com/heres-what-donald-trump-plans-teach-his-new-free-university-1840446, https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problems-donald-trumps-american-academy-plan-rcna123332 Kdammers ( talk) 05:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Take the billions and billions of dollars that we will collect by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments and then we will use that money to endow a new institution called the American Academy. Will the academy offer "an entire universe of the highest-quality educational content covering the full spectrum of human knowledge and skills", presented in PragerU videos the way they offer highest-quality educational content to students in Florida? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC).
I think the phrase “after the Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional” should be added after the statement that Trump rescinded the healthcare mandate to be more informative. 12.74.54.42 ( talk) 13:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Article is not faithful to #50 as to the links. Needs correction. My suggestion is to remove the first three links from #50. Comments? ― Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
[c]ommon occupations (e.g., accountant, politician, actor). Cessaune [talk] 23:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Cessaune [talk] 02:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I think a four-person consensus is enough to remove anyway, and I'll give it another day or two before acting on it (there's no hurry). I'm not clear; do you think the item should link to this thread? ― Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
eyes on the issue— the links were not an issue in the first RfC, a prime example of how not to do RfCs. 10 options in green, with blue highlighting the issues — "tell[ing] the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is" ( MOS:FIRST) — i.e., what is he (media personality/businessman/real estate developer/television personality and in which order) and do we say "who was" or "served as" president. The second RfC was about a different issue, whether to link
"45th president of the United States"to Presidency of Donald Trump or
45th "president of the United States"to President of the United States). By the time of the third RfC — on whether to add politician to Trump's jobs — the common occupation links were gone, and, when the issue of the order of his jobs came up again a couple of months later, nobody had missed them in the lead or noticed that the blue text in consensus #50 indicated links. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Why does it continue to say that several people died at the Jan 6th, Capitol riot...the specifics on WIKIPEDIA show BEFORE, DURING & AFTER the riot... 5 people died! 1 person, Ashli Babbitt, a protester, died on that day at the Capitol, due to the riot...at the hands of Capitol Police. The other deaths were of drug overdoses & natural causes, including the Police Officer it refers to...who died on a different day completely. NOTHING to do with the riot or the attack itself. Saying that several people died at the Capitol riot & not clarifying the specifics is outright falsehood & propaganda! 70.52.181.171 ( talk) 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
resulting in multiple deathsin the lead and
five people diedin the body, is supported by the cited and other sources. See also consensus #62 with the linked RfC and this long discussion that preceded the RfC. Babbitt wasn't a protester, she was one of the rioters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
please mention how he disgraced Jimmy Carter on the day his wife died. 24.19.192.53 ( talk) 03:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Trump won in 2016 and lost in 2020. Yet the lead says he was a “losing” candidate in 2016. Here’s the full sentence in the lead:
Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.
Now that a lot of time has passed, and we’ve seen the baneful effects of election denialism on all sides, I suggest we reconsider saying Trump lost in 2016. He didn’t. In basketball we don’t say, for example, that the Lakers scored more points but the Celtics won the most applause. It reeks of denialism to say Trump lost the election in 2016 in any way, and if he had lost then the entire executive branch (and the entire country) would have been entitled and obliged to subvert his presidency. I suggest a slight rephrase:
Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while she received more of the popular vote.
In other words, he got more of the electoral vote, which is what counts. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Trump won the 2016 presidential election. How do you get "election denialism" from that wording? And, yeah, according to a many RS, he also lost the popular vote — by 2.9 million votes, which is a bit more than Clinton receiving "more of the popular vote". Quoting our cited source: "For the fifth time in U.S. history, and the second time this century, a presidential candidate has won the White House while losing the popular vote." A few others, in no particular order: "Note: Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 but won the Electoral College" (PBS); "—2016: Trump won the Electoral College, 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227 — but lost the popular count by 2.8 million votes" (AP); "How Did Trump Win Election While Losing Popular Vote" (VoA); "An updated count by the Cook Political Report shows Trump lost the popular vote ..." (Vox). And a couple saying Clinton won the popular vote: "... indications are that Hillary Clinton will become the fifth presidential candidate to lose the election despite winning the popular vote" (Guardian); "Hillary Clinton Officially Wins Popular Vote by Nearly 2.9 Million" (ABC); "... a margin of 233,404 that puts Clinton on track to become the fifth U.S. presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election" (NPR). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
It reeks of denialism? No, the reek here is from a lack of comprehension of the subject matter. Presidents who lose the popular vote but squeak in via the Electoral College is a well-known, well-documented subject of political interest. There's even an article on it. This has nothing to do with election denialism, but rather a (well-sourced) observation on the thwarting of the will of the people. Zaathras ( talk) 12:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
In the 2000 United States presidential election, he won over Democratic incumbent Vice President Al Gore, despite losing the popular vote...As long as we're consistent across the relevant articles of presidency-winning-but-popular-vote-losing presidents, I don't see an issue. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
legitimately earned the presidency? He was elected, period, and his having been legitimately elected despite his opponent getting almost 3 million more votes than him is an important part of his biography. The footnote is not distracting, it's necessary for readers not familiar with this peculiar institution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
his opponent getting almost 3 million more votes than him is an important part of his biography" does not provide adequate reasoning as to why it's important, much less why its important enough for the lead. Again, I ask, why is his opponent getting more votes an important part of the article considering the national popular vote has no relevancy to who wins? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I attempted to fix the italics issue in two hatnotes in this article. Both Space4Time3Continuum2x and Iamreallygoodatcheckers removed the improvements without any constructive comment, despite my comment directing them to the relevant style guideline WP:ITHAT. I propose we reinstate my changes. Thrakkx ( talk) 18:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Words or phrases that are italicized within a normal sentence should be unitalicized within a hatnote. Since all words in a hatnote are italicized, the specific text will not stand out if the italics are not disabled.The "specific text" is the only text, there's no other text it could — or needs to — stand out from. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
italicized within a normal sentence, not all of it; otherwise, it accomplishes nothing. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Since all words in a hatnote are italicized, the specific text will not stand out if the italics are not disabled.I would disagree; the blue color is enough to make the text "stand out". Can you explain why we need roman type as well, particularly when the entire target title is in italics?"Because the guideline says so" is never sufficient. Guidelines are not only prescriptive but descriptive – for better or worse – which means that editors must be allowed to deviate when they don't make sense. I could see some logic in cases like "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump".It would also make more sense to use roman type for "Main article:" in this case, as: "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump". Maybe you should propose that at WT:HATNOTE? ― Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Woodensuperman: Why did you move the navbox, if that is the correct name, "Office and distinctions" into the prominent position above the other ones? Was that intentional? The new title "Party Political Positions" isn't an improvement either, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Currently, Trumpism is only mentioned as a link in a "See also" under the section "Campaign rhetoric and political positions." Irrespective of Trump, I believe that any figure that has an entire ideology named after them should have that ideology mentioned in an article's lead. BootsED ( talk) 21:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
His rise created a political movement known as [[Trumpism]].
The lead section is a summary of the most important contents of the article, and this article doesn't—and shouldn't, IMO—mention Trumpism. According to its WP article, people have widely differing opinions on what Trumpism is; some dispute that it exists. As for "Reaganomics", the Reagan article uses the term in scare quotes in the lead and the body. It's GOP PR for Reagan's economic policies that were either great or awful, depending on whom you ask. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I recommend not putting 'Trumpism' in the lead of this BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 23:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I think that there is more than enough coverage of the topic to warrant further mention in the body. Do you have a wording in mind for something that could potentially go in the lead? Cessaune [talk] 03:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
It's common that a politician's bio article includes a "Political positions" section. Here, quite a bit can be gleaned from the extensive coverage of his presidency, but that doesn't dispose of the issue. Since leaving office, he's talked about things he would do differently in a second term, so we can't just assume that everything he did as President represents a current position. There is some more recent information in the daughter article on his 2024 campaign. Per WP:SS, however, there should be at least a summary here. That might be an alternative to a separate "Political positions" section. One way or the other, the subject merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
(comment in non-admin capacity) Just reminding everyone that this article has an active 24h BRD restriction, which reads:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message.
It can be hard to tell whether removal of content is a revert of a recent edit or a non-revert removal of older content. This can make it hard to tell if reverting that removal is an appropriate revert or a potential violation of this restriction. Please be careful, and it's best to use the talk page instead of reverting. Pinging some editors who've been involved in recent back-and-forth revert cycles: @ Sennalen, GoodDay, SPECIFICO, PackMecEng, Space4Time3Continuum2x, PhotogenicScientist, and Cessaune. I'm not saying all of you have violated or even potentially violated the restriction; just a heads up. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the comma after "in Washington, D.C." when describing the felony counts in the last paragraph of the intro. After every state ("in Florida", "in New York", "in Georgia") there is no comma, and this comma breaks the flow of the sentence. GardenCosmos ( talk) 18:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
multiple levels of subordinate divisions. For example, we would follow "Miami, Florida" with a comma. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I removed the Lafayette Square section and it was promptly re-included. This section describes an event where protesters were removed by federal law enforcement from a location near the White House, Donald Trump shortly thereafter visiting the location and it being used for media purposes, and this being criticised by others. This plainly seems like a section that belongs on some other article (in fact, has its own article), and does not belong as a section in this article. This was not a particularly notable event or iconic moment of the Donald Trump chronicles, not materially significant to his presidency or his biography (his life), and not something as notable as his presidential pardons or his immigration policy, which are respectively the previous and following sections. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
mostlypeaceful (meaning "it was kinda justified").
badly hurtchurch that was almost
burned down, the photo-op, and especially the bible, were all distractions meant as catnip to the TV talking heads, so they would focus on appearances and miss the substance. Past editors fell into the same trap.
comical fail"largely peaceful" is the compromise with the editors who argued that a few demonstrators threw water bottles when riot-geared law enforcement attacked them with batons, rubber bullets and canisters of "smoke". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Work cited
|
---|
|
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As many of you know, Trump's rhetoric is no stranger to controversy. Many reliable sources have characterized his rhetoric as racist and white supremacist, especially recently. Indeed, here are a few sources mentioning this. [3] [4] [5]
Therefore, as virtually every WP:RS discusses his rhetoric as being racist-adjacent at the least, would it not be a material fact, and thus important to add, that Trump is a racist to his article? I personally have my doubts on the neutrality of this despite believing it's true, but if there's consensus to add, well, why not do it? TheCelebrinator ( talk) 06:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Alright, let's add that [Trump is racist] to his article. We'll see how it goes.[6]) even though your opinion is that it is not neutral and shouldn't be added. So it's pretty obvious that you only started this discussion in order to prove a WP:POINT. Are you really trying to claim that you still would've started this discussion even if you hadn't been in that dispute? From the timestamps alone that seems pretty unlikely. –– FormalDude (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
This is not the place to discus user conduct. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
As no one has supported this, can we snow close this as it is not going anywhere. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I am asking for a formal close. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose proposed addition to this BLP, as I would at Joe Biden's BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC) |
Oppose the proposal, as it's best we stay clear of the topic-in-general. GoodDay ( talk) 20:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Despite Trump now gleefully boasting of his plans to rule as a dictator, even when lobbed softballs by a sycophant like Hannity, this page does not mention any of the recent news coverage or scholarly analysis on Trump's out-in-the-open plans for a dictatorship in 2025. This glaring omission ought to be corrected at once. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 11:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
To all of you discussiong Trump's rhetoric, I've now started an article about it. You are very welcome to contribute to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The page has been reinstated and the redirect has been removed. It needs editors to add valid content, if such exists...promptly. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Several editors have sought to add new articles or add/expand sections of articles about Trump’s "rhetoric". What does that word mean in this context? Dictionaries give several definitions of "rhetoric", which one is intended here? Does it include everything Trump has said in public, including not just his style of speaking but also the substance of what he’s talking about? Just saying "rhetoric" seems very vague. We should be able to come up with clearer description of scope. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
no bearing, you may think you're saying the same thing, but mention of the main article doesn't belong in this discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
In my view, creation of this article should not obviate the need for inclusion of his authoritarian rhetoric in the BLP. It should not be used as any sort of consolation prize to avoid looking at the 16-ton pink elephant standing in the middle of the room. soibangla ( talk) 02:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The 'new' article should be discussed about on its own talkpage, now that it exists. GoodDay ( talk) 02:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All this discussion has had me notice something. Every President since Ronald Reagan, with the exception of the two Bushes who share a single name, have their family names redirect to their respective articles. Presumably, that's because they're so well-known that their family name pretty much universally refers to the individual in question.
However, there is another exception to this. Donald Trump. I don't think it'd be a controversial statement to say that when people mention "Trump," they are referring to Donald J. Trump, 45/7th President of the United States. The only other suggestion when looking up Trump is a "trump card," but that usage is so far below Donald Trump's that I think it'd be best to just redirect here. What does everybody here make of this? TheCelebrinator ( talk) 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Under "Early actions", I would like to add the fact that Trump was the oldest person in US history to be sworn in as president. This appears quiet significant. The same has been done on Reagan's page. My proposal can be seen below:
70 years old at the time, he became the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, surpassing Ronald Reagan who took office at age 69 in 1981; this ranking would at age 78 be passed on to Joe Biden in 2021. Marginataen ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
70 years old at the time, he became the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, surpassing Ronald Reagan who took office at age 69 in 1981]]; this ranking would at age 78 be passed on to Joe Biden in 2021, until it was surpassed by Old-Man-Aged-90 in 2034.
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 lacks a balanced view of his presidency. SenseiPaine ( talk) 04:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion here is pretty long, but unfortunately, the most apt replies come from those who want to close this RfC on procedural grounds. There are quite a lot of those people, particularly at the end of the discussion.
WP:RFCNEUTRAL has a good box outlining the good and the bad questions. The difference between this question and the third bullet point from bad questions is that here, there are potentially unlimited options that could satisfy the criteria set out in the question instead of just an excessive number of proposals.
Whether content is due and has appropriate weight is pretty subjective from editor to editor, that's why there is a lot of discussions about that and that's why we need consensus before introducing disputed content. Also, the problem with this question is that specific findings of consensus may mean totally different things for different editors. Any "yes" result does not indicate how much space, what scope, or which sources or tone, will the author use (presumably in this article), and what is "reasonable" for one editor need not be for another. On the other hand, any "no" result may be seen by some as a reason to shut down the debate about this for the foreseeable future, even though supporters demonstrated that reliable sources about this issue exist in fair numbers. Neither result is optimal.
This RfC is malformed because it is unclear which changes will (not) be authorised after consensus is (not) found in this discussion. (If this RfC was not supposed to change the article, why start it in the first place?) Restart it, state a specific question about a specific implementation of what you want to introduce, or a choice between specific implementations that you will figure out before the RfC, with a possibility to oppose any inclusion. Because the RfC is malformed, my closure does not indicate existence or lack of consensus for any wording on this issue. ( non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 14:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla ( talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
this is likely to be interpreted very differently by editors based on their personal opinions
regardless of how it may be ultimately phrasedis the wrong standard to use. RFCs are the best way to determine the exact way something contentious should be phrased, and it would be better to do it that way instead of "I want to put something of this topic in, dont know exactly what, can I get a stamp of approval?" Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 04:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Trump authoritarian rhetoricdue? Of-fucking-course the article should include
an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources, as long as it's WP:DUE.What're we expected to do with a positive outcome, huh? Go back to arguing endlessly over whether we should include the term facism, or go back to comparing Trump's rhetoric to that of Hitler and his comtemporaries? (Arguing over both is always an option.) What happens if we aren't able to come up with a wording? Since nobody is actually providing sources to back up their implicit claims that including something like this is due, what if someone is able to demonstrate that it isn't?Geniunely terrible question in my mind. And, I may just be dumb, but I don't quite understand how we got here. Cessaune [talk] 08:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Since nobody is actually providing sources to back up their implicit claims that including something like this is dueIt's been one of the main focuses of scholarship about Trump. From those I brought up earlier (Foa & Mounk, Bauer & Becker, Goodsell, the V-Dem and BLW scholar surveys), to Haggard and Kaufman [8], to Fukuyama's recent works about the threat to meritocracy and expertise posed by a dismantling of the non-partisan administrative state ("deep state"), Liberman et al. [9], Mickey et al. [10], and Goodsell who discusses the damage Trump has already done to US institutions [11] (actions, not words). And entire books, from Mounk's The People Vs. Democracy, to Levitsty and Ziblatt's How Democracies Die (4,000 citations in just 4 years), How to Save a Constitutional Democracy [12], Sunstein's Can It Happen Here? [13], Unmasking the Presidency [14], Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? [15], Backsliding [16], and Abel's upcoming How Autocrats Seek Power [17]. These cover Trump's personal involvement and impact, from mainstream scholars. It's unthinkable that this could be undue. DFlhb ( talk) 09:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone actually deny he has engaged in authoritarian rhetoric for yearsYes, there are. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 14:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, this is clearly a significant viewpoint as shown by the sources provided above). I empathize with those saying it is bad RfC, as this probably wouldn't have to be done on almost any other article in the encyclopedia. But Trump's article is a special outlier, and it is handled a lot more carefully, so I think this is a decent RfC to lay the groundwork for important content. How to include it is another question that will take a lot of further discussion. –– FormalDude (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
...the more vague it is, the less objectionable any outcome—maybe, but I think consensus item #58 shows that less objectionable ≠ better. I'd much rather have in hand a consensus to include a specific wording as opposed to a consensus to include some mention of his alleged authoritarianism. This is just an intermediate step that could've and should've been skipped, methinks. The RfC was premature and more people should've advocated for specific wordings before we started this. Cessaune [talk] 06:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I think one problem is that most editors here wish the guy would step on a Lego. I know I do. So we really want to bend over backwards to be fair. It's hard. It's hard for our sources to be fair. It's hard to find anyone who doesn't have an opinion about the guy. But I mean they guy gets millions of people to vote for him. Alan Dershowitz likes him. National Review likes him. Lot of intelligent people like him. Lot of famous popular talking heads like him. We'd have to use those as sources to say "but on the other hand, many analysts don't believe his rhetoric is getting more authoritarian, but rather that the liberal press is pushing that narrative", or "many analysts point out that this may be just the sort of thing the country needs" or "but many analysts have averred that Joe Biden's rhetoric is even worse" or whatever it takes to not lead the reader to any particular opinion. Otherwise we're not doing our job right. Best to just leave it out. Herostratus ( talk) 07:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
many analysts don't believe his rhetoric is getting more authoritarian-- RS? That be who? SPECIFICO talk 04:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
What precisely is being proposed here? Seems vague. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 08:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
my objective of this RFC was to at least establish consensus that something about his rhetoric belongs in the article.I get it, I assumed that was your intent. I've tried that once or twice myself, and I got the same pushback that you're getting here. Too many editors, including very experienced ones, fail to understand that another consensus would be required for the precise text. Apparently, they think a Support consensus here would be handing you or somebody else a blank check, granting carte blanche.All the
morph and blend and mutate and splintershould take place in the discussion that develops the options. I've seen this work multiple times, provided you don't try to make everybody completely happy. "Perfect is the enemy of good" should be the governing principle. Then, during the RfC, you need to make it clear up front that further tweaking of the options is not allowed. They can Support one or more options or risk having no content at all.It's a long and time-consuming process, it could easily take two months, it might seem absurd to spend that much time on two or three sentences, but this is one case where I think it's worthwhile. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, if this were President Biden's rhetoric? I'd oppose its addition on the Joe Biden page. GoodDay ( talk) 08:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I am aghast at the dereliction of editorial responsibility in the repeated failure, over a number of years, to add any information on Trump's authoritarian, fascistic, and now dictatorial tendencies. to the encyclopedia article in clear terms. Here is a selection of reference list culled from a longer biblioghraphy of nearly 100 recent reliable sources on this topic, easily establishing notability. It's as if we are failing to discuss one of the most notable and widely discussed aspects of the article topic in the article. Remember, if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
Just want to throw this out there, here is a recent AP article that specifically states, "Trump himself has been vowing “retribution” against his enemies and ramping up his use of violent and authoritarian rhetoric, including saying he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his second term." Yet another RS that states that Trump did indeed say he would be dictator on day one of his presidency, and has been saying increasingly violent and authoritarian rhetoric. BootsED ( talk) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Hi everyone, there is a similar rfc to this one currently happening on the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign talk page. I want to post this in a relevant place without bias so everyone can see and comment. BootsED ( talk) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Why does this RfC have two ids (rfcid=6AAEDEB}}rfcid=8CD1F7B}})? The second one shows up as text in the RfCs, e.g. here, along with a long comment by IP address editor 67.82.74.5. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
|
When a historian wrote an essay the other day warning that the election of former President Donald J. Trump next year could lead to dictatorship, one of Mr. Trump’s allies quickly responded by calling for the historian to be sent to prison.
The article is on point for this discussion. [22] O3000, Ret. ( talk) 15:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
DFlhb ( talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)The Atlantic published a special issue with 24 contributors forecasting what a second Trump presidency would look like, many of them depicting an autocratic regime.
Authoritarianism and fascism are not a matter of rhetoric. If I talk as though I am a dictator that doesn't make me a dictator of anything. The thrust of this proposed edit seems to be build a case against Trump that he is authoritarian or even fascist. It is similar to the Lafayette Square issue. I don't think this belongs in a encyclopedic biographical article, no matter how many op ed pieces opine.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
We should be considering a third option, fwiw. Create a new page, for the proposed info. That's if 'page length' is a concern for this BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 19:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
That page was going nowhere fast, was poorly defined, and has been redirected (not by me.) This idea that some editors can keep out serious encyclopedic and scholarly discussion of Trump's authoritarianism from his encyclopedia article by shunting it off to some fork page can now be dismissed. The leg you were standing on that it should go somewhere else rather than on the man's own page is now gone. Trump's authoritarianism is an aspect of the man that has received voluminous discussion. Indeed, it is one of the most notable and written about topics regarding Trump. Its absence from the article is palpable, and makes the page look like an unserious, nonencylopedic whitewash. I can (indeed, I have already done so and posted it) compile a list of 100 sources on this topic from the last several weeks alone, all from reliable, top-quality publications. There is no legitimate argument that a topic as widely discussed as Trump's authoritarianism should not be discussed in the article. If you think the reliable sources are wrong, simply add opposing views from reliable sources, should you be able to find any. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 01:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Now that we've got the Donald Trump's rhetoric page? This section of the discussion can be hatted. GoodDay ( talk) 16:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the latest damning report on the financial corruption in the Trump administration, ( https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/352377138e125817/849dad00-full.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/us/politics/trump-hotels-foreign-business-report.html) is it time for a standalone article on this topic? Recall that Trump's corruption has long been a matter of public interest even prior to this 158-page congressional report and investigation. Surely this topic is noteworthy enough to merit an article. We could possibly title the article Trump corruption scandal but that might be a bit too nonspecific; there have been several Trump corruption scandals. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 23:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm creating a talk on this because it was requested. I propose to add a backlink to the words "trade war" in the lede that would take the readers to an article [23] on the issue. I don't think there is anything to lose in the way of quality by adding one more backlink and that, au contraire, that it allows readers to learn more about a significant event in Trump's first term. This isn't any hill to die on, obviously, but what does everyone think? TheCelebrinator ( talk) 21:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Helpful link— that argument has been made about pretty much every other word in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the body: let's keep the links in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The sentence already contains three wikilinksis IMO a very arbitrary reason to oppose adding a link.
The lead is supposed to summarize the body: let's keep the links in the body—what? What does this even mean? Can you elaborate? Cessaune [talk] 22:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Helpful link — that argument has been made about pretty much every other word in the lead.Yes. It's less useful to think about these things as isolated single cases than in terms of the longer-term picture. The very same reasoning used for inclusion of this link would ultimately result in a negation of consensus #60. Further, if a reader isn't interested enough to read the relevant part of the body, they probably aren't interested enough to follow a link about China–United States trade war. If they do read the relevant part of the body, they will find a link there.Further yet, as has been stated in previous discussions, links in the lead encourage readers to bypass the body of this article. Their usual path should be lead→body→other articles, not lead→other articles (and they can stop after lead→body if they've read enough). Consensus #60 allowed some links in the lead, an apparent compromise that unhelpfully undermines this last principle, and we shouldn't go from bad to worse. On this basis, you won't see me supporting any new link in the lead. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The very same reasoning used for inclusion of this link would ultimately result in a negation of consensus #60—I'm confused. Consensus #60 was a consensus to include; the consensus was to "[i]nsert the links described in the RfC January 2023". Are you suggesting that this consensus item precludes addition of new links, barring the creation of a new consensus item or something?
Further, if a reader isn't interested enough to read the relevant part of the body, they probably aren't interested enough to follow a link about China–United States trade war. If they do read the relevant part of the body, they will find a link there.Are we simply forcing the reader to scroll down? If a reader was truly interested in reading about the China-US trade war, I feel like we would be forcing them to read a vague two-sentence blurb about the trade war just to click on the same link they would've clicked on if it was in the lead.
...links in the lead encourage readers to bypass the body of this article. Their usual path should be lead→body→other articles, not lead→other articles (and they can stop after lead→body if they've read enough).Does it really matter? Why do we care? Is the point to get people to read this specific article, or to get people to read one of the many Trump-related articles of similar quality and infinitely more detail? Also, who defines what someone's "usual path" should be? Is there a guideline/policy I'm unaware of?
Consensus #60 allowed some links in the lead, an apparent compromise that unhelpfully undermines this last principle, and we shouldn't go from bad to worse.Consensus #60 wasn't a compromise in any way, because that's not really how that RfC worked—a rough consensus of editors agreed that something needed to be added, while a separate, smaller group disagreed, and, ultimately, the add these ten links at least group prevailed. Hell of a one-sided compromise. Also, "bad to worse" so matter-of-factly is a weird statement. Who decided that the current number of links in the lead is a factually bad thing, or that adding more is somehow factually worse? The RfC doesn't suggest this at all. Cessaune [talk] 05:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The number currently sits at 10, so one more makes it 11.Correct, thanks for the math help. Now repeat that ten times, and you have 21. The larger the number gets, the easier it becomes to add just one more – the 11th link is a 10% increase, and this falls incrementally to 5% for the 21st, 3.3% for the 31st, and so on until the percentage increase becomes insignificant. Then the world ends. Both Space4T and I have already made this point, if not in those exact words.How is your link substantially more important than the next six editors' links to bankruptcies, Republican Party, populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist? (As if that would be the end.) I made this point in the second sentence of my opening comment, following the sentence "Yes."
It's less useful to think about these things as isolated single cases than in terms of the longer-term picture.― Mandruss ☎ 12:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
consensus has emerged to implement Option 1, which is to insert the 10-ish links described in the proposal, i.e., add them to the 15 that weren't contested (links to President of the United States, Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden, etc. I just counted 34 links, 11 of them in the fourth paragraph (I'd vote for removing all 11 and wikilinking "As president" to Presidency of Donald Trump — much easier on the eyes). The lead is the summary of a body that is mostly summary-level. This is the SEAOFBLUE version before the attempted clean-up last year, and this is the "semi-clean" version before the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
As for the slippery slope, that ship has sailed, or, rather, that toboggan is well on its way down.(Yes, it's important to find the apt metaphor, especially around Christmas.) I'm not prepared to give up the ghost completely until there is a talk page consensus that forces me to do so. This issue of reader steering is too dear to my heart. I probably won't be doing any reverts, but I'll continue to voice opposition in discussions like this one, probably using copy-and-paste (I doubt I could articulate the argument any better). ― Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
would you support it in principle at least?Not sure what you're saying. Can I support it in principle and continue to oppose it in practice? If so, sure. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
There's no rule that forbids adding any further link.
Correct, and I haven't claimed any such rule. The long term solution is to just debate the merits of adding each wikilink on their own.
No editor is bound by your idea of a proper perimeter for debate on this issue. My main opposition is about the reader steering issue, which applies to all new links, regardless of any merits seen by their supporters. So, as I said previously, I'll oppose any new link. That's obviously not to say I'll prevail every time, or any time, but a series of ten consecutive losses won't prevent me from continuing to oppose (until, as I said, a talk page consensus forces me to stop). This does not constitute an express "wikilink limit"; far from it. It's just one editor's position. The steering issue is not all-or-nothing. It's undermined by any lead links, but that's not a reason to stop opposing new ones that would make the problem even worse. ―
Mandruss
☎ 15:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I get the feeling you think this discussion bears on more than your single link; it does not. Maybe that's where we're getting hung up. When I say I'll oppose any new link, I mean one at a time, individually, as discussions like this one come up. I'm not looking for a consensus against new links in the lead, as that would be outside the scope of this discussion. If I wanted to do that, it would be in a separate thread. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
reader steering would also presumably apply to every existing wikilink. You can't just remove the concept of wikilinking...If you believe that, you don't understand the reader steering issue as I've described it in this discussion. It's affected only by lead links. Try a re-read of the second paragraph of my Oppose !vote, my first "contribution" to this discussion, way up there. Not that I'd expect an understanding of it to change your position. Here's where the slippery slope comes into play:
It's undermined by any lead links, but that's not a reason to stop opposing new ones that would make the problem even worse.The fact that this particular discussion applies to only one link is beside that point. I'm thinking it's about time for you and I to agree to disagree, too.
I think the consensus is clear.Not. Casting out two editors who dropped in one-liners and didn't otherwise participate, I read it as two to two. Or, if you include them, 2.5 to 2.5. Slatersteven's
Seems reasonable to add a wikilink.isn't even really an argument, but I'm generously giving him 0.5 on the Support side. GoodDay bolded Neutral and then argued Weak Oppose, declining to fix the discrepancy when it was pointed out. If there is no clearer consensus in a couple of weeks (patience is a wikivirtue), then we can talk about what to do; but "no consensus" generally means "no change". ― Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
May we close one of the two discussions down? It's kinda confusing having related discussions occurring concurrently. GoodDay ( talk) 23:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Section links might solve all this. Cessaune [talk] 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I just think that people didn't like the way it looked.Right, thanks for the memory refresh. And I just think they didn't like the way it looked because it was new and different. I opined that those same editors wouldn't like the way inline citations looked, if it were proposed as something new. Now that they're ubiquitous and familiar, they look just fine.But I think a lot of the pushback had to do with introducing something new and unfamiliar to readers, as if online users don't adapt to such changes all the time without skipping a beat. The human brain is designed to adapt to environmental change. Presumably, this article would be different from most or all others on the site for some time, maybe forever. Prioritizing that before everything else is precisely what stifles evolutionary improvements, producing stagnation.Re
accessibility nightmare, I must have missed that part of the discussion (which was occurring on at least two different pages, including, IIRC, one UTP). Using those "squigglies" was not a problem for me on a Windows laptop, and my vision isn't great. One wouldn't need to make out the detail of the "squiggly", they would just need to know that there's something clickable there. So they make slight mouse-pointer adjustments until the "hand" appears, then click. We do that all the time. As for mobile, I know less than nothing about that, having never even owned a smartphone. But, as Space4T has suggested, there are probably solutions to address those concerns, and I don't know how the discussion was allowed to die on that basis. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I seem to be late to the party. IIRC, we're talking about this proposal: Discussion of section references in the lead It's something I had started doing in one of my essays. Is that correct? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:27, 1 January 2024 (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 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | → | Archive 168 |
Trump has proposed a tuition-free online "American Academy" to be funded by taxing university endowments (apparently to be started if he gets elected president). I think this should be briefly mentioned. See https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/donald-trump-wants-government-fund-another-trump-university, https://www.newsweek.com/heres-what-donald-trump-plans-teach-his-new-free-university-1840446, https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problems-donald-trumps-american-academy-plan-rcna123332 Kdammers ( talk) 05:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Take the billions and billions of dollars that we will collect by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments and then we will use that money to endow a new institution called the American Academy. Will the academy offer "an entire universe of the highest-quality educational content covering the full spectrum of human knowledge and skills", presented in PragerU videos the way they offer highest-quality educational content to students in Florida? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC).
I think the phrase “after the Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional” should be added after the statement that Trump rescinded the healthcare mandate to be more informative. 12.74.54.42 ( talk) 13:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Article is not faithful to #50 as to the links. Needs correction. My suggestion is to remove the first three links from #50. Comments? ― Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
[c]ommon occupations (e.g., accountant, politician, actor). Cessaune [talk] 23:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Cessaune [talk] 02:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I think a four-person consensus is enough to remove anyway, and I'll give it another day or two before acting on it (there's no hurry). I'm not clear; do you think the item should link to this thread? ― Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
eyes on the issue— the links were not an issue in the first RfC, a prime example of how not to do RfCs. 10 options in green, with blue highlighting the issues — "tell[ing] the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is" ( MOS:FIRST) — i.e., what is he (media personality/businessman/real estate developer/television personality and in which order) and do we say "who was" or "served as" president. The second RfC was about a different issue, whether to link
"45th president of the United States"to Presidency of Donald Trump or
45th "president of the United States"to President of the United States). By the time of the third RfC — on whether to add politician to Trump's jobs — the common occupation links were gone, and, when the issue of the order of his jobs came up again a couple of months later, nobody had missed them in the lead or noticed that the blue text in consensus #50 indicated links. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Why does it continue to say that several people died at the Jan 6th, Capitol riot...the specifics on WIKIPEDIA show BEFORE, DURING & AFTER the riot... 5 people died! 1 person, Ashli Babbitt, a protester, died on that day at the Capitol, due to the riot...at the hands of Capitol Police. The other deaths were of drug overdoses & natural causes, including the Police Officer it refers to...who died on a different day completely. NOTHING to do with the riot or the attack itself. Saying that several people died at the Capitol riot & not clarifying the specifics is outright falsehood & propaganda! 70.52.181.171 ( talk) 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
resulting in multiple deathsin the lead and
five people diedin the body, is supported by the cited and other sources. See also consensus #62 with the linked RfC and this long discussion that preceded the RfC. Babbitt wasn't a protester, she was one of the rioters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
please mention how he disgraced Jimmy Carter on the day his wife died. 24.19.192.53 ( talk) 03:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Trump won in 2016 and lost in 2020. Yet the lead says he was a “losing” candidate in 2016. Here’s the full sentence in the lead:
Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.
Now that a lot of time has passed, and we’ve seen the baneful effects of election denialism on all sides, I suggest we reconsider saying Trump lost in 2016. He didn’t. In basketball we don’t say, for example, that the Lakers scored more points but the Celtics won the most applause. It reeks of denialism to say Trump lost the election in 2016 in any way, and if he had lost then the entire executive branch (and the entire country) would have been entitled and obliged to subvert his presidency. I suggest a slight rephrase:
Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while she received more of the popular vote.
In other words, he got more of the electoral vote, which is what counts. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Trump won the 2016 presidential election. How do you get "election denialism" from that wording? And, yeah, according to a many RS, he also lost the popular vote — by 2.9 million votes, which is a bit more than Clinton receiving "more of the popular vote". Quoting our cited source: "For the fifth time in U.S. history, and the second time this century, a presidential candidate has won the White House while losing the popular vote." A few others, in no particular order: "Note: Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 but won the Electoral College" (PBS); "—2016: Trump won the Electoral College, 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227 — but lost the popular count by 2.8 million votes" (AP); "How Did Trump Win Election While Losing Popular Vote" (VoA); "An updated count by the Cook Political Report shows Trump lost the popular vote ..." (Vox). And a couple saying Clinton won the popular vote: "... indications are that Hillary Clinton will become the fifth presidential candidate to lose the election despite winning the popular vote" (Guardian); "Hillary Clinton Officially Wins Popular Vote by Nearly 2.9 Million" (ABC); "... a margin of 233,404 that puts Clinton on track to become the fifth U.S. presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election" (NPR). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
It reeks of denialism? No, the reek here is from a lack of comprehension of the subject matter. Presidents who lose the popular vote but squeak in via the Electoral College is a well-known, well-documented subject of political interest. There's even an article on it. This has nothing to do with election denialism, but rather a (well-sourced) observation on the thwarting of the will of the people. Zaathras ( talk) 12:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
In the 2000 United States presidential election, he won over Democratic incumbent Vice President Al Gore, despite losing the popular vote...As long as we're consistent across the relevant articles of presidency-winning-but-popular-vote-losing presidents, I don't see an issue. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
legitimately earned the presidency? He was elected, period, and his having been legitimately elected despite his opponent getting almost 3 million more votes than him is an important part of his biography. The footnote is not distracting, it's necessary for readers not familiar with this peculiar institution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
his opponent getting almost 3 million more votes than him is an important part of his biography" does not provide adequate reasoning as to why it's important, much less why its important enough for the lead. Again, I ask, why is his opponent getting more votes an important part of the article considering the national popular vote has no relevancy to who wins? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I attempted to fix the italics issue in two hatnotes in this article. Both Space4Time3Continuum2x and Iamreallygoodatcheckers removed the improvements without any constructive comment, despite my comment directing them to the relevant style guideline WP:ITHAT. I propose we reinstate my changes. Thrakkx ( talk) 18:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Words or phrases that are italicized within a normal sentence should be unitalicized within a hatnote. Since all words in a hatnote are italicized, the specific text will not stand out if the italics are not disabled.The "specific text" is the only text, there's no other text it could — or needs to — stand out from. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
italicized within a normal sentence, not all of it; otherwise, it accomplishes nothing. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Since all words in a hatnote are italicized, the specific text will not stand out if the italics are not disabled.I would disagree; the blue color is enough to make the text "stand out". Can you explain why we need roman type as well, particularly when the entire target title is in italics?"Because the guideline says so" is never sufficient. Guidelines are not only prescriptive but descriptive – for better or worse – which means that editors must be allowed to deviate when they don't make sense. I could see some logic in cases like "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump".It would also make more sense to use roman type for "Main article:" in this case, as: "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump". Maybe you should propose that at WT:HATNOTE? ― Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Woodensuperman: Why did you move the navbox, if that is the correct name, "Office and distinctions" into the prominent position above the other ones? Was that intentional? The new title "Party Political Positions" isn't an improvement either, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Currently, Trumpism is only mentioned as a link in a "See also" under the section "Campaign rhetoric and political positions." Irrespective of Trump, I believe that any figure that has an entire ideology named after them should have that ideology mentioned in an article's lead. BootsED ( talk) 21:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
His rise created a political movement known as [[Trumpism]].
The lead section is a summary of the most important contents of the article, and this article doesn't—and shouldn't, IMO—mention Trumpism. According to its WP article, people have widely differing opinions on what Trumpism is; some dispute that it exists. As for "Reaganomics", the Reagan article uses the term in scare quotes in the lead and the body. It's GOP PR for Reagan's economic policies that were either great or awful, depending on whom you ask. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I recommend not putting 'Trumpism' in the lead of this BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 23:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I think that there is more than enough coverage of the topic to warrant further mention in the body. Do you have a wording in mind for something that could potentially go in the lead? Cessaune [talk] 03:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
It's common that a politician's bio article includes a "Political positions" section. Here, quite a bit can be gleaned from the extensive coverage of his presidency, but that doesn't dispose of the issue. Since leaving office, he's talked about things he would do differently in a second term, so we can't just assume that everything he did as President represents a current position. There is some more recent information in the daughter article on his 2024 campaign. Per WP:SS, however, there should be at least a summary here. That might be an alternative to a separate "Political positions" section. One way or the other, the subject merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
(comment in non-admin capacity) Just reminding everyone that this article has an active 24h BRD restriction, which reads:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message.
It can be hard to tell whether removal of content is a revert of a recent edit or a non-revert removal of older content. This can make it hard to tell if reverting that removal is an appropriate revert or a potential violation of this restriction. Please be careful, and it's best to use the talk page instead of reverting. Pinging some editors who've been involved in recent back-and-forth revert cycles: @ Sennalen, GoodDay, SPECIFICO, PackMecEng, Space4Time3Continuum2x, PhotogenicScientist, and Cessaune. I'm not saying all of you have violated or even potentially violated the restriction; just a heads up. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the comma after "in Washington, D.C." when describing the felony counts in the last paragraph of the intro. After every state ("in Florida", "in New York", "in Georgia") there is no comma, and this comma breaks the flow of the sentence. GardenCosmos ( talk) 18:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
multiple levels of subordinate divisions. For example, we would follow "Miami, Florida" with a comma. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I removed the Lafayette Square section and it was promptly re-included. This section describes an event where protesters were removed by federal law enforcement from a location near the White House, Donald Trump shortly thereafter visiting the location and it being used for media purposes, and this being criticised by others. This plainly seems like a section that belongs on some other article (in fact, has its own article), and does not belong as a section in this article. This was not a particularly notable event or iconic moment of the Donald Trump chronicles, not materially significant to his presidency or his biography (his life), and not something as notable as his presidential pardons or his immigration policy, which are respectively the previous and following sections. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
mostlypeaceful (meaning "it was kinda justified").
badly hurtchurch that was almost
burned down, the photo-op, and especially the bible, were all distractions meant as catnip to the TV talking heads, so they would focus on appearances and miss the substance. Past editors fell into the same trap.
comical fail"largely peaceful" is the compromise with the editors who argued that a few demonstrators threw water bottles when riot-geared law enforcement attacked them with batons, rubber bullets and canisters of "smoke". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Work cited
|
---|
|
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As many of you know, Trump's rhetoric is no stranger to controversy. Many reliable sources have characterized his rhetoric as racist and white supremacist, especially recently. Indeed, here are a few sources mentioning this. [3] [4] [5]
Therefore, as virtually every WP:RS discusses his rhetoric as being racist-adjacent at the least, would it not be a material fact, and thus important to add, that Trump is a racist to his article? I personally have my doubts on the neutrality of this despite believing it's true, but if there's consensus to add, well, why not do it? TheCelebrinator ( talk) 06:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Alright, let's add that [Trump is racist] to his article. We'll see how it goes.[6]) even though your opinion is that it is not neutral and shouldn't be added. So it's pretty obvious that you only started this discussion in order to prove a WP:POINT. Are you really trying to claim that you still would've started this discussion even if you hadn't been in that dispute? From the timestamps alone that seems pretty unlikely. –– FormalDude (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
This is not the place to discus user conduct. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
As no one has supported this, can we snow close this as it is not going anywhere. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I am asking for a formal close. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose proposed addition to this BLP, as I would at Joe Biden's BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC) |
Oppose the proposal, as it's best we stay clear of the topic-in-general. GoodDay ( talk) 20:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Despite Trump now gleefully boasting of his plans to rule as a dictator, even when lobbed softballs by a sycophant like Hannity, this page does not mention any of the recent news coverage or scholarly analysis on Trump's out-in-the-open plans for a dictatorship in 2025. This glaring omission ought to be corrected at once. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 11:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
To all of you discussiong Trump's rhetoric, I've now started an article about it. You are very welcome to contribute to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The page has been reinstated and the redirect has been removed. It needs editors to add valid content, if such exists...promptly. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Several editors have sought to add new articles or add/expand sections of articles about Trump’s "rhetoric". What does that word mean in this context? Dictionaries give several definitions of "rhetoric", which one is intended here? Does it include everything Trump has said in public, including not just his style of speaking but also the substance of what he’s talking about? Just saying "rhetoric" seems very vague. We should be able to come up with clearer description of scope. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
no bearing, you may think you're saying the same thing, but mention of the main article doesn't belong in this discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
In my view, creation of this article should not obviate the need for inclusion of his authoritarian rhetoric in the BLP. It should not be used as any sort of consolation prize to avoid looking at the 16-ton pink elephant standing in the middle of the room. soibangla ( talk) 02:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The 'new' article should be discussed about on its own talkpage, now that it exists. GoodDay ( talk) 02:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All this discussion has had me notice something. Every President since Ronald Reagan, with the exception of the two Bushes who share a single name, have their family names redirect to their respective articles. Presumably, that's because they're so well-known that their family name pretty much universally refers to the individual in question.
However, there is another exception to this. Donald Trump. I don't think it'd be a controversial statement to say that when people mention "Trump," they are referring to Donald J. Trump, 45/7th President of the United States. The only other suggestion when looking up Trump is a "trump card," but that usage is so far below Donald Trump's that I think it'd be best to just redirect here. What does everybody here make of this? TheCelebrinator ( talk) 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Under "Early actions", I would like to add the fact that Trump was the oldest person in US history to be sworn in as president. This appears quiet significant. The same has been done on Reagan's page. My proposal can be seen below:
70 years old at the time, he became the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, surpassing Ronald Reagan who took office at age 69 in 1981; this ranking would at age 78 be passed on to Joe Biden in 2021. Marginataen ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
70 years old at the time, he became the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, surpassing Ronald Reagan who took office at age 69 in 1981]]; this ranking would at age 78 be passed on to Joe Biden in 2021, until it was surpassed by Old-Man-Aged-90 in 2034.
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 lacks a balanced view of his presidency. SenseiPaine ( talk) 04:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion here is pretty long, but unfortunately, the most apt replies come from those who want to close this RfC on procedural grounds. There are quite a lot of those people, particularly at the end of the discussion.
WP:RFCNEUTRAL has a good box outlining the good and the bad questions. The difference between this question and the third bullet point from bad questions is that here, there are potentially unlimited options that could satisfy the criteria set out in the question instead of just an excessive number of proposals.
Whether content is due and has appropriate weight is pretty subjective from editor to editor, that's why there is a lot of discussions about that and that's why we need consensus before introducing disputed content. Also, the problem with this question is that specific findings of consensus may mean totally different things for different editors. Any "yes" result does not indicate how much space, what scope, or which sources or tone, will the author use (presumably in this article), and what is "reasonable" for one editor need not be for another. On the other hand, any "no" result may be seen by some as a reason to shut down the debate about this for the foreseeable future, even though supporters demonstrated that reliable sources about this issue exist in fair numbers. Neither result is optimal.
This RfC is malformed because it is unclear which changes will (not) be authorised after consensus is (not) found in this discussion. (If this RfC was not supposed to change the article, why start it in the first place?) Restart it, state a specific question about a specific implementation of what you want to introduce, or a choice between specific implementations that you will figure out before the RfC, with a possibility to oppose any inclusion. Because the RfC is malformed, my closure does not indicate existence or lack of consensus for any wording on this issue. ( non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 14:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla ( talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
this is likely to be interpreted very differently by editors based on their personal opinions
regardless of how it may be ultimately phrasedis the wrong standard to use. RFCs are the best way to determine the exact way something contentious should be phrased, and it would be better to do it that way instead of "I want to put something of this topic in, dont know exactly what, can I get a stamp of approval?" Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 04:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Trump authoritarian rhetoricdue? Of-fucking-course the article should include
an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources, as long as it's WP:DUE.What're we expected to do with a positive outcome, huh? Go back to arguing endlessly over whether we should include the term facism, or go back to comparing Trump's rhetoric to that of Hitler and his comtemporaries? (Arguing over both is always an option.) What happens if we aren't able to come up with a wording? Since nobody is actually providing sources to back up their implicit claims that including something like this is due, what if someone is able to demonstrate that it isn't?Geniunely terrible question in my mind. And, I may just be dumb, but I don't quite understand how we got here. Cessaune [talk] 08:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Since nobody is actually providing sources to back up their implicit claims that including something like this is dueIt's been one of the main focuses of scholarship about Trump. From those I brought up earlier (Foa & Mounk, Bauer & Becker, Goodsell, the V-Dem and BLW scholar surveys), to Haggard and Kaufman [8], to Fukuyama's recent works about the threat to meritocracy and expertise posed by a dismantling of the non-partisan administrative state ("deep state"), Liberman et al. [9], Mickey et al. [10], and Goodsell who discusses the damage Trump has already done to US institutions [11] (actions, not words). And entire books, from Mounk's The People Vs. Democracy, to Levitsty and Ziblatt's How Democracies Die (4,000 citations in just 4 years), How to Save a Constitutional Democracy [12], Sunstein's Can It Happen Here? [13], Unmasking the Presidency [14], Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? [15], Backsliding [16], and Abel's upcoming How Autocrats Seek Power [17]. These cover Trump's personal involvement and impact, from mainstream scholars. It's unthinkable that this could be undue. DFlhb ( talk) 09:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone actually deny he has engaged in authoritarian rhetoric for yearsYes, there are. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 14:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, this is clearly a significant viewpoint as shown by the sources provided above). I empathize with those saying it is bad RfC, as this probably wouldn't have to be done on almost any other article in the encyclopedia. But Trump's article is a special outlier, and it is handled a lot more carefully, so I think this is a decent RfC to lay the groundwork for important content. How to include it is another question that will take a lot of further discussion. –– FormalDude (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
...the more vague it is, the less objectionable any outcome—maybe, but I think consensus item #58 shows that less objectionable ≠ better. I'd much rather have in hand a consensus to include a specific wording as opposed to a consensus to include some mention of his alleged authoritarianism. This is just an intermediate step that could've and should've been skipped, methinks. The RfC was premature and more people should've advocated for specific wordings before we started this. Cessaune [talk] 06:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I think one problem is that most editors here wish the guy would step on a Lego. I know I do. So we really want to bend over backwards to be fair. It's hard. It's hard for our sources to be fair. It's hard to find anyone who doesn't have an opinion about the guy. But I mean they guy gets millions of people to vote for him. Alan Dershowitz likes him. National Review likes him. Lot of intelligent people like him. Lot of famous popular talking heads like him. We'd have to use those as sources to say "but on the other hand, many analysts don't believe his rhetoric is getting more authoritarian, but rather that the liberal press is pushing that narrative", or "many analysts point out that this may be just the sort of thing the country needs" or "but many analysts have averred that Joe Biden's rhetoric is even worse" or whatever it takes to not lead the reader to any particular opinion. Otherwise we're not doing our job right. Best to just leave it out. Herostratus ( talk) 07:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
many analysts don't believe his rhetoric is getting more authoritarian-- RS? That be who? SPECIFICO talk 04:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
What precisely is being proposed here? Seems vague. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 08:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
my objective of this RFC was to at least establish consensus that something about his rhetoric belongs in the article.I get it, I assumed that was your intent. I've tried that once or twice myself, and I got the same pushback that you're getting here. Too many editors, including very experienced ones, fail to understand that another consensus would be required for the precise text. Apparently, they think a Support consensus here would be handing you or somebody else a blank check, granting carte blanche.All the
morph and blend and mutate and splintershould take place in the discussion that develops the options. I've seen this work multiple times, provided you don't try to make everybody completely happy. "Perfect is the enemy of good" should be the governing principle. Then, during the RfC, you need to make it clear up front that further tweaking of the options is not allowed. They can Support one or more options or risk having no content at all.It's a long and time-consuming process, it could easily take two months, it might seem absurd to spend that much time on two or three sentences, but this is one case where I think it's worthwhile. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, if this were President Biden's rhetoric? I'd oppose its addition on the Joe Biden page. GoodDay ( talk) 08:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I am aghast at the dereliction of editorial responsibility in the repeated failure, over a number of years, to add any information on Trump's authoritarian, fascistic, and now dictatorial tendencies. to the encyclopedia article in clear terms. Here is a selection of reference list culled from a longer biblioghraphy of nearly 100 recent reliable sources on this topic, easily establishing notability. It's as if we are failing to discuss one of the most notable and widely discussed aspects of the article topic in the article. Remember, if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
Just want to throw this out there, here is a recent AP article that specifically states, "Trump himself has been vowing “retribution” against his enemies and ramping up his use of violent and authoritarian rhetoric, including saying he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his second term." Yet another RS that states that Trump did indeed say he would be dictator on day one of his presidency, and has been saying increasingly violent and authoritarian rhetoric. BootsED ( talk) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Hi everyone, there is a similar rfc to this one currently happening on the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign talk page. I want to post this in a relevant place without bias so everyone can see and comment. BootsED ( talk) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Why does this RfC have two ids (rfcid=6AAEDEB}}rfcid=8CD1F7B}})? The second one shows up as text in the RfCs, e.g. here, along with a long comment by IP address editor 67.82.74.5. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
|
When a historian wrote an essay the other day warning that the election of former President Donald J. Trump next year could lead to dictatorship, one of Mr. Trump’s allies quickly responded by calling for the historian to be sent to prison.
The article is on point for this discussion. [22] O3000, Ret. ( talk) 15:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
DFlhb ( talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)The Atlantic published a special issue with 24 contributors forecasting what a second Trump presidency would look like, many of them depicting an autocratic regime.
Authoritarianism and fascism are not a matter of rhetoric. If I talk as though I am a dictator that doesn't make me a dictator of anything. The thrust of this proposed edit seems to be build a case against Trump that he is authoritarian or even fascist. It is similar to the Lafayette Square issue. I don't think this belongs in a encyclopedic biographical article, no matter how many op ed pieces opine.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
We should be considering a third option, fwiw. Create a new page, for the proposed info. That's if 'page length' is a concern for this BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 19:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
That page was going nowhere fast, was poorly defined, and has been redirected (not by me.) This idea that some editors can keep out serious encyclopedic and scholarly discussion of Trump's authoritarianism from his encyclopedia article by shunting it off to some fork page can now be dismissed. The leg you were standing on that it should go somewhere else rather than on the man's own page is now gone. Trump's authoritarianism is an aspect of the man that has received voluminous discussion. Indeed, it is one of the most notable and written about topics regarding Trump. Its absence from the article is palpable, and makes the page look like an unserious, nonencylopedic whitewash. I can (indeed, I have already done so and posted it) compile a list of 100 sources on this topic from the last several weeks alone, all from reliable, top-quality publications. There is no legitimate argument that a topic as widely discussed as Trump's authoritarianism should not be discussed in the article. If you think the reliable sources are wrong, simply add opposing views from reliable sources, should you be able to find any. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 01:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Now that we've got the Donald Trump's rhetoric page? This section of the discussion can be hatted. GoodDay ( talk) 16:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the latest damning report on the financial corruption in the Trump administration, ( https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/352377138e125817/849dad00-full.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/us/politics/trump-hotels-foreign-business-report.html) is it time for a standalone article on this topic? Recall that Trump's corruption has long been a matter of public interest even prior to this 158-page congressional report and investigation. Surely this topic is noteworthy enough to merit an article. We could possibly title the article Trump corruption scandal but that might be a bit too nonspecific; there have been several Trump corruption scandals. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 23:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm creating a talk on this because it was requested. I propose to add a backlink to the words "trade war" in the lede that would take the readers to an article [23] on the issue. I don't think there is anything to lose in the way of quality by adding one more backlink and that, au contraire, that it allows readers to learn more about a significant event in Trump's first term. This isn't any hill to die on, obviously, but what does everyone think? TheCelebrinator ( talk) 21:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Helpful link— that argument has been made about pretty much every other word in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the body: let's keep the links in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The sentence already contains three wikilinksis IMO a very arbitrary reason to oppose adding a link.
The lead is supposed to summarize the body: let's keep the links in the body—what? What does this even mean? Can you elaborate? Cessaune [talk] 22:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Helpful link — that argument has been made about pretty much every other word in the lead.Yes. It's less useful to think about these things as isolated single cases than in terms of the longer-term picture. The very same reasoning used for inclusion of this link would ultimately result in a negation of consensus #60. Further, if a reader isn't interested enough to read the relevant part of the body, they probably aren't interested enough to follow a link about China–United States trade war. If they do read the relevant part of the body, they will find a link there.Further yet, as has been stated in previous discussions, links in the lead encourage readers to bypass the body of this article. Their usual path should be lead→body→other articles, not lead→other articles (and they can stop after lead→body if they've read enough). Consensus #60 allowed some links in the lead, an apparent compromise that unhelpfully undermines this last principle, and we shouldn't go from bad to worse. On this basis, you won't see me supporting any new link in the lead. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The very same reasoning used for inclusion of this link would ultimately result in a negation of consensus #60—I'm confused. Consensus #60 was a consensus to include; the consensus was to "[i]nsert the links described in the RfC January 2023". Are you suggesting that this consensus item precludes addition of new links, barring the creation of a new consensus item or something?
Further, if a reader isn't interested enough to read the relevant part of the body, they probably aren't interested enough to follow a link about China–United States trade war. If they do read the relevant part of the body, they will find a link there.Are we simply forcing the reader to scroll down? If a reader was truly interested in reading about the China-US trade war, I feel like we would be forcing them to read a vague two-sentence blurb about the trade war just to click on the same link they would've clicked on if it was in the lead.
...links in the lead encourage readers to bypass the body of this article. Their usual path should be lead→body→other articles, not lead→other articles (and they can stop after lead→body if they've read enough).Does it really matter? Why do we care? Is the point to get people to read this specific article, or to get people to read one of the many Trump-related articles of similar quality and infinitely more detail? Also, who defines what someone's "usual path" should be? Is there a guideline/policy I'm unaware of?
Consensus #60 allowed some links in the lead, an apparent compromise that unhelpfully undermines this last principle, and we shouldn't go from bad to worse.Consensus #60 wasn't a compromise in any way, because that's not really how that RfC worked—a rough consensus of editors agreed that something needed to be added, while a separate, smaller group disagreed, and, ultimately, the add these ten links at least group prevailed. Hell of a one-sided compromise. Also, "bad to worse" so matter-of-factly is a weird statement. Who decided that the current number of links in the lead is a factually bad thing, or that adding more is somehow factually worse? The RfC doesn't suggest this at all. Cessaune [talk] 05:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The number currently sits at 10, so one more makes it 11.Correct, thanks for the math help. Now repeat that ten times, and you have 21. The larger the number gets, the easier it becomes to add just one more – the 11th link is a 10% increase, and this falls incrementally to 5% for the 21st, 3.3% for the 31st, and so on until the percentage increase becomes insignificant. Then the world ends. Both Space4T and I have already made this point, if not in those exact words.How is your link substantially more important than the next six editors' links to bankruptcies, Republican Party, populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist? (As if that would be the end.) I made this point in the second sentence of my opening comment, following the sentence "Yes."
It's less useful to think about these things as isolated single cases than in terms of the longer-term picture.― Mandruss ☎ 12:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
consensus has emerged to implement Option 1, which is to insert the 10-ish links described in the proposal, i.e., add them to the 15 that weren't contested (links to President of the United States, Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden, etc. I just counted 34 links, 11 of them in the fourth paragraph (I'd vote for removing all 11 and wikilinking "As president" to Presidency of Donald Trump — much easier on the eyes). The lead is the summary of a body that is mostly summary-level. This is the SEAOFBLUE version before the attempted clean-up last year, and this is the "semi-clean" version before the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
As for the slippery slope, that ship has sailed, or, rather, that toboggan is well on its way down.(Yes, it's important to find the apt metaphor, especially around Christmas.) I'm not prepared to give up the ghost completely until there is a talk page consensus that forces me to do so. This issue of reader steering is too dear to my heart. I probably won't be doing any reverts, but I'll continue to voice opposition in discussions like this one, probably using copy-and-paste (I doubt I could articulate the argument any better). ― Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
would you support it in principle at least?Not sure what you're saying. Can I support it in principle and continue to oppose it in practice? If so, sure. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
There's no rule that forbids adding any further link.
Correct, and I haven't claimed any such rule. The long term solution is to just debate the merits of adding each wikilink on their own.
No editor is bound by your idea of a proper perimeter for debate on this issue. My main opposition is about the reader steering issue, which applies to all new links, regardless of any merits seen by their supporters. So, as I said previously, I'll oppose any new link. That's obviously not to say I'll prevail every time, or any time, but a series of ten consecutive losses won't prevent me from continuing to oppose (until, as I said, a talk page consensus forces me to stop). This does not constitute an express "wikilink limit"; far from it. It's just one editor's position. The steering issue is not all-or-nothing. It's undermined by any lead links, but that's not a reason to stop opposing new ones that would make the problem even worse. ―
Mandruss
☎ 15:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I get the feeling you think this discussion bears on more than your single link; it does not. Maybe that's where we're getting hung up. When I say I'll oppose any new link, I mean one at a time, individually, as discussions like this one come up. I'm not looking for a consensus against new links in the lead, as that would be outside the scope of this discussion. If I wanted to do that, it would be in a separate thread. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
reader steering would also presumably apply to every existing wikilink. You can't just remove the concept of wikilinking...If you believe that, you don't understand the reader steering issue as I've described it in this discussion. It's affected only by lead links. Try a re-read of the second paragraph of my Oppose !vote, my first "contribution" to this discussion, way up there. Not that I'd expect an understanding of it to change your position. Here's where the slippery slope comes into play:
It's undermined by any lead links, but that's not a reason to stop opposing new ones that would make the problem even worse.The fact that this particular discussion applies to only one link is beside that point. I'm thinking it's about time for you and I to agree to disagree, too.
I think the consensus is clear.Not. Casting out two editors who dropped in one-liners and didn't otherwise participate, I read it as two to two. Or, if you include them, 2.5 to 2.5. Slatersteven's
Seems reasonable to add a wikilink.isn't even really an argument, but I'm generously giving him 0.5 on the Support side. GoodDay bolded Neutral and then argued Weak Oppose, declining to fix the discrepancy when it was pointed out. If there is no clearer consensus in a couple of weeks (patience is a wikivirtue), then we can talk about what to do; but "no consensus" generally means "no change". ― Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
May we close one of the two discussions down? It's kinda confusing having related discussions occurring concurrently. GoodDay ( talk) 23:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Section links might solve all this. Cessaune [talk] 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I just think that people didn't like the way it looked.Right, thanks for the memory refresh. And I just think they didn't like the way it looked because it was new and different. I opined that those same editors wouldn't like the way inline citations looked, if it were proposed as something new. Now that they're ubiquitous and familiar, they look just fine.But I think a lot of the pushback had to do with introducing something new and unfamiliar to readers, as if online users don't adapt to such changes all the time without skipping a beat. The human brain is designed to adapt to environmental change. Presumably, this article would be different from most or all others on the site for some time, maybe forever. Prioritizing that before everything else is precisely what stifles evolutionary improvements, producing stagnation.Re
accessibility nightmare, I must have missed that part of the discussion (which was occurring on at least two different pages, including, IIRC, one UTP). Using those "squigglies" was not a problem for me on a Windows laptop, and my vision isn't great. One wouldn't need to make out the detail of the "squiggly", they would just need to know that there's something clickable there. So they make slight mouse-pointer adjustments until the "hand" appears, then click. We do that all the time. As for mobile, I know less than nothing about that, having never even owned a smartphone. But, as Space4T has suggested, there are probably solutions to address those concerns, and I don't know how the discussion was allowed to die on that basis. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I seem to be late to the party. IIRC, we're talking about this proposal: Discussion of section references in the lead It's something I had started doing in one of my essays. Is that correct? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)