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 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Hello. The section Donald_Trump#Foreign_interference_in_election would be better expressed as two sections, one with the existing title "Foreign interference in election" and one titled "Campaign interaction with Russia." The existing sourcing is too weak to keep what we have. We say:
American intelligence sources stated with "high confidence"[411] that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump by hacking into computers of Trumps' opponents,[412] and that members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election.[413]
This is a falsehood. Somebody added "and that..." from reporting from The New York Times concatenating a sentence that presently claims American intelligence sources. I'll wait a day before making this change. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
American intelligence sources stated with "high confidence"[411] that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump by hacking into computers of Trumps' opponents.[412] Members of Trump's campaign were reportedly in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election.[413]
Further comment: IMO that whole section needs redoing. It's cluttered and disorganized, as often happens when sections are built up over months, one item at a time. There is no need to mention Medvedchuk, he's a bit player. We need to define who Kislyak is. We should remove things that are not supported by sources, such as "on business unrelated to the campaign" and "who volunteered to testify to congressional inquiry". Sources actually say that Kushner "is not a target of the investigation" rather than the melodramatic "not charged with any crime". We need to clarify the secret-channel request. I'll bring a proposed rewrite here for discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@ SusanLesch: You reverted my edit adding a brief summary of the various investigations looking into the Russian interference affair. I understand that you are busy splitting the subjects between the election interference on one side, and the links between Trump people and Russia on the other, however the investigations were started as a direct consequence of the intelligence reports, so I believe they are noteworthy in that short section. I don't see them mentioned anywhere else in the article. Can I restore the sentence? — JFG talk 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
There is now a separate article about Links between Trump associates and Russian officials; I have placed a hatnote pointing there, that should do. — JFG talk 23:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you guys re-write his intro to:
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician and businessman currently serving as the 45th President of the United States. Before his presidency, he was the chairman and president of The Trump Organization, from 1971 to 2017, and host of the The Apprentice, from 2004 to 2015. 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:54 ( talk) 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The article series infobar omits reference to his 2000 presidential campaign. If the reason is due to its lack of substance, I would argue otherwise given its Trump's first major political run. In contrast, Joe Biden's article series infobar references both of his bids for the presidency. If this has already been resolved, please ignore this. Frevangelion ( talk) 02:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: Sorry but your edit made no sense to me. Your edit summary was: "IMO this paragraph goes beyond the sources and has too much detail for a biography. Reducing it to a sentence and moving it to "Russian interference"". The edit summary was untrue. Also the sources refer specifically to interaction between Russia and the Trump camp, not to Russian interference in the election. My paragraph was sourced to Mother Jones who gave us a summary of articles from the following sources: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian. I am leaving now for several hours and hope that you find a way to improve the paragraph. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks, Susan. Right now neither your original paragraph nor my one-sentence summary of the paragraph are in the article, because both have been challenged and can't be restored without consensus. So we can discuss it here and get second opinions without any time pressure. Here's what we are talking about:
Your paragraph, which was placed in "Interactions with Russia":
In 2017, Trump asked then-FBI director James Comey, director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, and NSA director Michael Rogers to push back on news media reports of his associates' collusion with Russia. His chief of staff, Reince Priebus asked FBI acting director Andrew McCabe to do the same, and White House staff asked Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr and his counterpart in the House, Devin Nunes, to help dissolve news reports about alleged collusion. [1]
My one-sentence summary, which I placed in "Russian interference":
Trump has tried several times to get American intelligence officials to drop the investigations or to publicly refute the news reports. [1]
I was initially dismayed by that paragraph because it says "media reports of his associates' collusion with Russia" and "news reports about collusion". But in fact there have been NO news reports actually alleging collusion; the Mother Jones article mentions "possible collusion". Somebody changed one of the mentions to "alleged" collusion but IMO that doesn't go far enough, we need to completely get rid of the false claim that reliable sources have reported collusion. They have reported contacts, and some have talked about "possible collusion", but "media reports of his associates' collusion with Russia" do not exist. So I'm glad you took the paragraph out of the article while we discuss it; I had been wondering how I could reword it in the meantime to get rid of that serious misinformation.
The second reason for my edit was that IMO this is way too much detail, too much information for an already overlong biography. These various actions by Trump are spelled out in detail in the linked articles "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" and "Links between Trump associates and Russia officials". So I reduced this to a single sentence, summarizing that Trump has tried repeatedly to get people to end the investigations or publicly dispute the news reports.
My third change, moving the information from "interactions with Russia" to "Russian interference", is debatable, because it is related to both. Some of his actions were directed toward stopping the Flynn investigation; firing Comey may have been directed toward stopping the Russia investigation; the approaches to Coats, Rogers, Nunes, and Burr were about disputing the contacts. So it has some aspects of both subjects, but I thought it fit well into your paragraph about Trump's pushback against the Russia investigation.
Looking for discussion and hopefully consensus what to do with this information. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
In every case, the object was to push away media reports about contacts between the Trump people and Russia.Well, almost every case: one of the cited interventions by Trump was trying to get Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. The source article doesn't mention the other attempts to stop investigations - the firing of Comey (arguably to stop the Russia investigation) and the earlier approach by "senior administration officials" asking intelligence officials to intervene with the FBI to stop the Flynn investigation. [4] I don't want to pile on even more detail so we'll skip those instances. That leaves the Coats, Rogers. McCabe, Burr, and Nunes approaches, and they were all requests for for a public relations pushback. So I'm OK with keeping it in the "interactions" section.
It's high time to add the description climate change denier somewhere in the lead. As Mother Jones notes, "Donald Trump has been a climate change denier for years, alleging that global warming is a Chinese invention and declaring that cold winter days prove that it's a hoax." These are clearly crazy, fringe, conspiracy theories. [5]
The Guardian now also calls him "America’s worst-ever president" who "is doing his best to ruin the world for our children and grandchildren." [6] -- Tataral ( talk) 20:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
In Trump's speech today, he mentioned that, "Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations it is estimated it would only produce a two tenths of one degree - think of that, this much - Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100." So he seems to now believe that human activity does indeed affect the climate, despite prior comments that the whole thing is a hoax. That doesn't mean he is correct about the magnitude of the problem or the magnitude of the Paris Agreement's effect, but it does mean something. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Why was the official White House photo changed to this low resolution photo? There is a precedent of using the official White House photos of the president as the infobox picture. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
They explained they were mainline Protestants, the same Christian tradition in which Trump, a self-described Presbyterian, was raised and claims membership. Like many mainline pastors, they told the President-elect, they lead diverse congregations. Trump nodded along, then posed another question to the two men: "But you're all Christians?" "Yes, we're all Christians." http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/
Some people have interpreted this as Trump being unaware presbyterians are christians, which seems extreme even for by the Donald's standards - given that he is a lifelong member of the church and referenced his Presbyterian identity during the campaign. It seems to me that the question was a slightly botched rhetorical flourish, we-are-all-children-of-god sentiment that came out wrong. CNN doesn't interpret the quote. Does it deserve inclusion? I'd say no. ` NPalgan2 ( talk) 03:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a sampling of the undocumented and slanderous swipes contained in this politically motivated and highly biased article:
The entire introductory paragraphs are totally without reference citations making them suspiciously opinionated and libelous slander and falsehoods. This unreferenced body of opinion and misinformation is below the Wiki standard for citation and substantiation.
"After Trump made controversial remarks about illegal immigrants in 2015, he lost business contracts with several companies that summer,..." Exactly what were these remarks, how were they controversial, who are they controversial to? Further, the next sentence claims that these so-called controversial remarks resulted in a reduction of Trump's fortune but does not cite a source for this assertion.
"Forbes believed his net worth estimate was "a whopper", figuring it was $4.1 billion in 2015 (405th in the world, 133d in the U.S.).[78][79] ". In this slander, reference 78 is non existent and reference 79 does not cite any facts to support its assertion, it is just an assertion without any supporting data and does not belong in a Wiki caliber article. And the word "whopper" is never used in the article making it a lie in the Wiki article by implying that it was quoted from the source. Who said it?
The list of personal cutting remarks and slanders and falsehoods and fabricated false facts continues on throughout this article. Further, the article has purposefully been closed in order to inhibit tagging of the myriad unsubstantiated entries. this article can only be described as a hatchet job, likely politically motivated by political vandals and needs to be edited by an honest editor and supplied with truthful citations where assertions and facts are cited.
2601:342:0:E3D0:E8ED:E94D:AD56:922C ( talk) 05:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
All but 1 of the navboxes aren't showing. What's wrong? GoodDay ( talk) 03:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
Flagicon}}
template much.
Jeanjung212 (
talk) 11:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)A possibly contentious suggestion. Wikipedia doesn't generally comment on the tax returns of public figures. The political impact of the material should be in the Presidential Campaign section. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if we can reach a consensus on Navboxes in the article and which ones we can remove and which should be kept? The article is exceeding the
Post-expand include size by so much that the navboxes currently don't even display. I've done just about everything I can to reduce the post-expand include size in the article without changing the content up to this point but have pretty much run out of things that I can do and the problem appears to only be getting worse. I think the best place to start is removing the leaders navboxes because of their overuse of {{
Flagicon}}
a total of 78 times and the resources they consume. These navboxes I recommend removing are: {{
Current G8 Leaders}}
{{
Current G20 Leaders}}
{{
Current APEC Leaders}}
and {{
Current NATO leaders}}
.
Jeanjung212 (
talk) 17:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
Trump executive actions}}
{{
US Presidents}}
{{
Current G8 Leaders}}
{{
Current G20 Leaders}}
{{
Current APEC Leaders}}
{{
Current NATO leaders}}
{{
Current U.S. Cabinet}}
{{
Trump cabinet}}
{{
Trump Executive Office}}
{{
Trump presidency}}
{{
United States presidential election, 2000}}
{{
United States presidential election, 2016}}
{{
United States presidential election, 2020}}
{{
US Presidents}}
, as it's in all the other US Presidents articles. All of the family business boxes should be deleted, as well.
GoodDay (
talk) 12:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC){{
The Apprentice}}
. It doesn't even link to this article, so it does not provide the
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navigation that navboxes are supposed to offer. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs) 01:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
The Apprentice}}
also makese sense.
Jeanjung212 (
talk) 14:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC){{
Trump family}}
and {{
Trump media}}
when the other political templates are moved. {{
Trump businesses}}
I think is fine being removed currently as it doesn't add much and there already is considerable article space and wikilinks devoted to it in the main article.
Jeanjung212 (
talk) 14:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm too late for voting but E is fine for me. I'm wondering, though : aren't we going to have the same problem with the Mike Pence photo, since it was apparently taken by the same person ? Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 07:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion A discussion is taking place at Talk:Mike_Pence#Image. Please post your comments there and not here. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 01:02, 4 June 2017 (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.
Okay users, that is obviously intentional. Even though it is subversively hilarious IMO, it is still technically WP:NOTHERE. - Sleyece 12:47, 03 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Doesn't the family of Trump adviser Jared Kushner own 666 Fifth Avenue. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You guys notice the page is hacked with a message? 73.98.160.69 ( talk) 07:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand that this is the most heavily trafficked of the US Presidents articles. But please, can we stop linking 45th to List of Presidents of the United States, in the infobox? We should be keeping these infoboxes as consistent as possible. GoodDay ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Corrections welcome here because possibly I misunderstand: User:Power~enwiki made at least 15 major edits and nobody here said a word. I agree with a few of those edits however some were disturbing and I can't object. It takes too much time to reach consensus and add material to this article, only to fall through a hole in the sanctions process, and have to start over again after any user with an account decides it's his day to edit. My time is worth more studying for school. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Those were some rather large shifts in the article. What should really happen next is the D in BRD. So before the slow edit war starts, what are some of the concerns with the changes? PackMecEng ( talk) 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
When I go to the Wiki page there is no mention of his height. When I google "Wiki Donald Trump Height", then Google uses Wikipedia as a source of him being 1m98. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.109.39 ( talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"figuring it was $4.1 billion in 2015 (405th in the world, 133d in the U.S.)."
133d should be changed to 133rd EggsInMyPockets ( talk) 15:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Started a new article that I see as important and needs development and some more content. It is here: Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference. Casprings ( talk) 15:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
IMO it's way too early for an article like this. Maybe later if the Special Counsel starts making noise about it. But the information we have right now is perfectly able to be covered in a few paragraphs in the "White House attempts to influence the investigation" section in the "Russian interference" article. Also, I don't think we have solid enough sourcing for a bald assertion in Wikipedia's voice that he interfered. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Footnote 386 is a news article titled, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence". However, former FBI Director Comey testified under oath today that this news article was almost entirely wrong, so we shouldn't continue to leave the impression that this news article's accuracy has not been seriously challenged. See, for example:
“ | Easley, Jonathan. "Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories", The Hill (June 8, 2017): "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled 'Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence'.... Cotton asked Comey if that story was 'almost entirely wrong,' and Comey said that it was." | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"A made statement B; C made statement D", not
"A made statement B; however, C made statement D."-- Dervorguilla ( talk) 16:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"Members of Trump's campaign and later his White House staff, particularly Flynn, were in contact with Russian officials both before and after the November election. However, former FBI Director James Comey has called that New York Times article almost entirely wrong."Is that really an effective use of space? Or is there something extra we want to say there that does rely on the NYTimes article, so that we can dispute its accuracy in the next sentence? ~ Awilley ( talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Awilley: Then that makes the discussion moot right? There is no claim from the NYT and no need to include Comey's repudiation of it.- Mr X 23:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is too large right now. I propose that the entire "Side Ventures" section be removed.
I note that none of his these ventures compare in importance to his three most important and notable activities:
Be it the USFL or Trump University, they're not nearly as important. They should be removed from this article and included only in Business career of Donald Trump, or else discussed more briefly in the "Real estate business" section. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI I have summarized the Comey section. — JFG talk 06:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Article here: /info/en/?search=Christopher_A._Wray
Casprings ( talk) 12:04, June 7, 2017 (UTC)
For those who don't remember me: I am the one in WP who knows about the President's German roots, and I wrote the relevant articles in de.WP. Mostly based on Gwenda Blair: The Trumps.
Donald's German grandpa was born Friedrich Trump in Germany, and it is fair to mention this. He sticked to this name in his first years in NY where he lived in a mostly German milieu (which was common in the US before WW I). But when he went to Seattle, he became an American in every respect (Blair) and changed his first name to Fred or Frederick. So in the sentence concerning his death, Friedrich should be set back to Frederick. And somehow the discrepancy should be explained.
In case of questions, please ping me. -- Klaus Frisch ( talk) 19:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
There is the line "Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating much free media coverage." right at the beginning of this article. That seems like it is a bit biased, because while true that a lot of statements were false, that is true for many if not all US politicians. This statement should go under the 2016 Presidential Campaign section, or be reworded as such to sound less biased. Maybe something as simple as just removing the "or false".
2601:8C2:4280:C0D:D51A:6EAB:5A4D:F7A1 ( talk) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Infobox
Please change from
"The Wharton School (B.S. in Econ.)"
To
"The Wharton School (B.S. in Econ.)"
Schistocyte ( talk) 13:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Note. Template:Thin space causes thin spaces to "not word wrap." Sorry I wasn't aware of that before answering. I don't think we have a problem because the words themselves won't wrap. Anyway. Just posting this here in case somebody ever wants to restore the template. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up it's likely to be deleted. [17] -- NeilN talk to me 03:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The Trump administration should be punished for this farcical state of affairs by putting up the most unflattering public domain image of Trump we can find. It won't take long for the White House to release a decent official portrait to the public domain if we do that. I just can't even... -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It's aesthetically appropriate and also consistent for the portrait to feature the American flag in the background, as is the case with other Wikipedia articles of recent former presidents. As soon as someone is able to secure such a photo, it should definitely be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzhu07 ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The "Pic A" seems like a good stopgap until we settle on a more permanent image, and it might do as the permanent one as well. It's not super-high-quality, but Trump supporters will appreciate a photo that makes him look reasonably good (and opponents can take heart in the image showing a horse's ass!). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I actually prefer the crop created by User:Jean-Jacques Georges, listed here on the left as picture B. To me it is clearer, better focused, and has a somewhat better expression. And the background is less cluttered. But I will accept either. And I think we should leave "A" in the infobox for now. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer pic B if not for its very low res. Overall, I like pic A as a replacement, but I'd suggest removing the empty space above Trump's head. κατάστασ η 18:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Both A and B look pretty awful with a creepy smile, poor lighting, poor focus. I'm starting to trawl through the myriad pictures of Trump since he came to office. Here's a first suggestion as Picture C: neutral expression, good focus, high resolution, clean crop. Will look for others asap. — JFG talk 20:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Added Pic D: 1. Better to show part of the thing above his head than to crop right down to his hair, which is extremely bad form in portraits. (Unless the photo was taken in front of a blank, completely uniform background, there will always be something appearing to come out of his head. For example, a cropped Pic C would have has multiple spokes coming out of his head. I merely cropped out enough to avoid it looking like a leaf and being unduly distracting.) 2. 0.8:1 aspect ratio, pretty much standard for portraits, at least in the U.S. Same as an 8x10 photo. 3. Doesn't chop off his lapel pin. 4. Pic A seems overexposed to me, along with other problems including overcropping. Pic C would face outward away from the text, which is an automatic disqualifier. ―
Mandruss
☎ 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, it doesn't matter. He looks like an idiot in any picture. I prefer images that aren't so closely cropped, but really there's no way to polish that turd. --
Scjessey (
talk) 22:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
|
OT
|
---|
::If someone made the above comment on the Barack Obama page, Scjessey would be the first to remove it and to call for the person to be banned. Anythingyouwant wants to remove it but I'd like for it to remain to reflect Scjessey's bias and the crude manner in which he expresses his opinions.--
William S. Saturn (
talk) 18:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
|
@ Mandruss: Regarding picture C, I disagree that facing away from the text is "an automatic disqualifier": it's a criterion among others to help choose the best picture. To me, facial exxpression, focus and lighting are much more important. See also the infobox pictures of current world leaders Emmanuel Macron, Paolo Gentiloni and Donald Tusk. However Vladimir Putin agreed to face the text! — JFG talk 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hold up there... As an OTRS agent who was consulted on the ticket relating to this image, and active on the deletion request (which was started out of process, should have been deleted on the spot after OTRS agent requested it, but were waiting for something on the ticket, so never did it), I must make it clear it is not CC-licensed, and that there is no clear evidence that the statement on whitehouse.gov is legally true. It is unfortunate that I can't reveal the info on the OTRS ticket, but you just have to take the OTRS agents words for it, and the trust that the Commons community knows what they are doing when it comes to copyright laws (and policies of their project). --( t) Josve05a ( c) 00:27, 4 June 2017 (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.
Please state your subjective preference. If and when the Commons discussion closes as Delete, the image with the greatest support here will be installed. This will be regardless of amount of participation or degree of consensus. The "winning" support will likely be less than 50% given the number of choices, but there will not be enough time to narrow the field to 2 and re-vote. This will be followed by an RfC to establish a more durable consensus. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
So, JFG, do you concur that consensus 1 should be stricken at this point with a note and a link to this parent section? I lack the TE authority, and I would have been scared off by the giant yellow edit warning anyway. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see undeletion discussion of the official portrait images on Commons: c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you please add President Trump's parents to the sidebar on his page? Figfires ( talk) 11:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Since Melania Trump is mentioned in the paragraph about the groping tape, should her comments be included? (I think she dismissed them as normal locker-room talk). 87.247.53.24 ( talk) 02:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Has no place on this talk page. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Public-figure policy
Analogous advice from the Reporters Committee• Get independent corroboration. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for the source's own purposes. • Just because someone else said it does not mean that an organization cannot be sued for republishing it. ( The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed.) The 'conduit' fallacyA common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement is clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so. A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you are simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense. When the press reports that X has leveled an accusation against Y, it may be held to account not only for the truth of the fact that the accusation was made, but also for the steps taken to verify the truth of the accusation. (AP Stylebook, 2015 ed.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 13:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ummm, Dervoguilla, you need to read WP:LEGAL or you run the risk of getting indeffed. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
|
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. ( WP:BLP.)
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ( WP:PUBLICFIGURE.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's say you have reason to think that an RS (the Post) and the subject (Trump) could be hostile to each other. According to the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press, even a responsible, reputable organization could have a vendetta against someone and could unintentionally misrepresent some facts about that person. So, you can't rely on the Post to be accurate here. You need to confirm what it's saying. You need to find a second, independent RS.
"Get independent corroboration whenever possible. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for his or her own purposes... Don’t rely on someone else to be accurate." ("vendetta. A prolonged [mutual enmity] marked by bitter hostility [between individuals or factions] <waging a literary vendetta> <conduct partisan vendettas>. Corroborate. Confirm <Everyone corroborated what he had said>.) Gregg P. Leslie, ed., The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed. (Arlington: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2011), 10; Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 01:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You have to get the article right. ( WP:BLP.) So, if a particular passage relates to a (living) public figure, you have to come up with a second source. ( WP:PUBLICFIGURE.) If the alleged incident actually did occur, some other source would have alleged it too.
This is common sense... To be continued (soon!), with an example from the article] -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 00:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Illustration. "Trump is officially under investigation... Special counsel investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice..." Julie Vitkovskaya, " Trump Is Officially under Investigation. How Did We Get Here?", Washington Post, June 15, 2017. Had Trump been officially under investigation, some independent third-party RS would most likely have made that allegation too! They didn't, so JFG had to leave it out.
(And, as we now know, the alleged incident didn't actually occur.)
No second, independent RS had alleged the fact, so if JFG had chosen to go ahead and add a statement about it to the article, I could have just removed it for POV; but then I would have had to begin yet another discussion...
Some of the facts in the article are likely to get disputed. A few may be about persons non-notable or dead; those can stay. The others would need to get double-sourced or go. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:00, 21 June 2017 (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 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Hello. The section Donald_Trump#Foreign_interference_in_election would be better expressed as two sections, one with the existing title "Foreign interference in election" and one titled "Campaign interaction with Russia." The existing sourcing is too weak to keep what we have. We say:
American intelligence sources stated with "high confidence"[411] that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump by hacking into computers of Trumps' opponents,[412] and that members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election.[413]
This is a falsehood. Somebody added "and that..." from reporting from The New York Times concatenating a sentence that presently claims American intelligence sources. I'll wait a day before making this change. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
American intelligence sources stated with "high confidence"[411] that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump by hacking into computers of Trumps' opponents.[412] Members of Trump's campaign were reportedly in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election.[413]
Further comment: IMO that whole section needs redoing. It's cluttered and disorganized, as often happens when sections are built up over months, one item at a time. There is no need to mention Medvedchuk, he's a bit player. We need to define who Kislyak is. We should remove things that are not supported by sources, such as "on business unrelated to the campaign" and "who volunteered to testify to congressional inquiry". Sources actually say that Kushner "is not a target of the investigation" rather than the melodramatic "not charged with any crime". We need to clarify the secret-channel request. I'll bring a proposed rewrite here for discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@ SusanLesch: You reverted my edit adding a brief summary of the various investigations looking into the Russian interference affair. I understand that you are busy splitting the subjects between the election interference on one side, and the links between Trump people and Russia on the other, however the investigations were started as a direct consequence of the intelligence reports, so I believe they are noteworthy in that short section. I don't see them mentioned anywhere else in the article. Can I restore the sentence? — JFG talk 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
There is now a separate article about Links between Trump associates and Russian officials; I have placed a hatnote pointing there, that should do. — JFG talk 23:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you guys re-write his intro to:
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician and businessman currently serving as the 45th President of the United States. Before his presidency, he was the chairman and president of The Trump Organization, from 1971 to 2017, and host of the The Apprentice, from 2004 to 2015. 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:54 ( talk) 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The article series infobar omits reference to his 2000 presidential campaign. If the reason is due to its lack of substance, I would argue otherwise given its Trump's first major political run. In contrast, Joe Biden's article series infobar references both of his bids for the presidency. If this has already been resolved, please ignore this. Frevangelion ( talk) 02:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: Sorry but your edit made no sense to me. Your edit summary was: "IMO this paragraph goes beyond the sources and has too much detail for a biography. Reducing it to a sentence and moving it to "Russian interference"". The edit summary was untrue. Also the sources refer specifically to interaction between Russia and the Trump camp, not to Russian interference in the election. My paragraph was sourced to Mother Jones who gave us a summary of articles from the following sources: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian. I am leaving now for several hours and hope that you find a way to improve the paragraph. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks, Susan. Right now neither your original paragraph nor my one-sentence summary of the paragraph are in the article, because both have been challenged and can't be restored without consensus. So we can discuss it here and get second opinions without any time pressure. Here's what we are talking about:
Your paragraph, which was placed in "Interactions with Russia":
In 2017, Trump asked then-FBI director James Comey, director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, and NSA director Michael Rogers to push back on news media reports of his associates' collusion with Russia. His chief of staff, Reince Priebus asked FBI acting director Andrew McCabe to do the same, and White House staff asked Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr and his counterpart in the House, Devin Nunes, to help dissolve news reports about alleged collusion. [1]
My one-sentence summary, which I placed in "Russian interference":
Trump has tried several times to get American intelligence officials to drop the investigations or to publicly refute the news reports. [1]
I was initially dismayed by that paragraph because it says "media reports of his associates' collusion with Russia" and "news reports about collusion". But in fact there have been NO news reports actually alleging collusion; the Mother Jones article mentions "possible collusion". Somebody changed one of the mentions to "alleged" collusion but IMO that doesn't go far enough, we need to completely get rid of the false claim that reliable sources have reported collusion. They have reported contacts, and some have talked about "possible collusion", but "media reports of his associates' collusion with Russia" do not exist. So I'm glad you took the paragraph out of the article while we discuss it; I had been wondering how I could reword it in the meantime to get rid of that serious misinformation.
The second reason for my edit was that IMO this is way too much detail, too much information for an already overlong biography. These various actions by Trump are spelled out in detail in the linked articles "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" and "Links between Trump associates and Russia officials". So I reduced this to a single sentence, summarizing that Trump has tried repeatedly to get people to end the investigations or publicly dispute the news reports.
My third change, moving the information from "interactions with Russia" to "Russian interference", is debatable, because it is related to both. Some of his actions were directed toward stopping the Flynn investigation; firing Comey may have been directed toward stopping the Russia investigation; the approaches to Coats, Rogers, Nunes, and Burr were about disputing the contacts. So it has some aspects of both subjects, but I thought it fit well into your paragraph about Trump's pushback against the Russia investigation.
Looking for discussion and hopefully consensus what to do with this information. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
In every case, the object was to push away media reports about contacts between the Trump people and Russia.Well, almost every case: one of the cited interventions by Trump was trying to get Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. The source article doesn't mention the other attempts to stop investigations - the firing of Comey (arguably to stop the Russia investigation) and the earlier approach by "senior administration officials" asking intelligence officials to intervene with the FBI to stop the Flynn investigation. [4] I don't want to pile on even more detail so we'll skip those instances. That leaves the Coats, Rogers. McCabe, Burr, and Nunes approaches, and they were all requests for for a public relations pushback. So I'm OK with keeping it in the "interactions" section.
It's high time to add the description climate change denier somewhere in the lead. As Mother Jones notes, "Donald Trump has been a climate change denier for years, alleging that global warming is a Chinese invention and declaring that cold winter days prove that it's a hoax." These are clearly crazy, fringe, conspiracy theories. [5]
The Guardian now also calls him "America’s worst-ever president" who "is doing his best to ruin the world for our children and grandchildren." [6] -- Tataral ( talk) 20:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
In Trump's speech today, he mentioned that, "Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations it is estimated it would only produce a two tenths of one degree - think of that, this much - Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100." So he seems to now believe that human activity does indeed affect the climate, despite prior comments that the whole thing is a hoax. That doesn't mean he is correct about the magnitude of the problem or the magnitude of the Paris Agreement's effect, but it does mean something. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Why was the official White House photo changed to this low resolution photo? There is a precedent of using the official White House photos of the president as the infobox picture. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
They explained they were mainline Protestants, the same Christian tradition in which Trump, a self-described Presbyterian, was raised and claims membership. Like many mainline pastors, they told the President-elect, they lead diverse congregations. Trump nodded along, then posed another question to the two men: "But you're all Christians?" "Yes, we're all Christians." http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/
Some people have interpreted this as Trump being unaware presbyterians are christians, which seems extreme even for by the Donald's standards - given that he is a lifelong member of the church and referenced his Presbyterian identity during the campaign. It seems to me that the question was a slightly botched rhetorical flourish, we-are-all-children-of-god sentiment that came out wrong. CNN doesn't interpret the quote. Does it deserve inclusion? I'd say no. ` NPalgan2 ( talk) 03:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a sampling of the undocumented and slanderous swipes contained in this politically motivated and highly biased article:
The entire introductory paragraphs are totally without reference citations making them suspiciously opinionated and libelous slander and falsehoods. This unreferenced body of opinion and misinformation is below the Wiki standard for citation and substantiation.
"After Trump made controversial remarks about illegal immigrants in 2015, he lost business contracts with several companies that summer,..." Exactly what were these remarks, how were they controversial, who are they controversial to? Further, the next sentence claims that these so-called controversial remarks resulted in a reduction of Trump's fortune but does not cite a source for this assertion.
"Forbes believed his net worth estimate was "a whopper", figuring it was $4.1 billion in 2015 (405th in the world, 133d in the U.S.).[78][79] ". In this slander, reference 78 is non existent and reference 79 does not cite any facts to support its assertion, it is just an assertion without any supporting data and does not belong in a Wiki caliber article. And the word "whopper" is never used in the article making it a lie in the Wiki article by implying that it was quoted from the source. Who said it?
The list of personal cutting remarks and slanders and falsehoods and fabricated false facts continues on throughout this article. Further, the article has purposefully been closed in order to inhibit tagging of the myriad unsubstantiated entries. this article can only be described as a hatchet job, likely politically motivated by political vandals and needs to be edited by an honest editor and supplied with truthful citations where assertions and facts are cited.
2601:342:0:E3D0:E8ED:E94D:AD56:922C ( talk) 05:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
All but 1 of the navboxes aren't showing. What's wrong? GoodDay ( talk) 03:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
Flagicon}}
template much.
Jeanjung212 (
talk) 11:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)A possibly contentious suggestion. Wikipedia doesn't generally comment on the tax returns of public figures. The political impact of the material should be in the Presidential Campaign section. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if we can reach a consensus on Navboxes in the article and which ones we can remove and which should be kept? The article is exceeding the
Post-expand include size by so much that the navboxes currently don't even display. I've done just about everything I can to reduce the post-expand include size in the article without changing the content up to this point but have pretty much run out of things that I can do and the problem appears to only be getting worse. I think the best place to start is removing the leaders navboxes because of their overuse of {{
Flagicon}}
a total of 78 times and the resources they consume. These navboxes I recommend removing are: {{
Current G8 Leaders}}
{{
Current G20 Leaders}}
{{
Current APEC Leaders}}
and {{
Current NATO leaders}}
.
Jeanjung212 (
talk) 17:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
Trump executive actions}}
{{
US Presidents}}
{{
Current G8 Leaders}}
{{
Current G20 Leaders}}
{{
Current APEC Leaders}}
{{
Current NATO leaders}}
{{
Current U.S. Cabinet}}
{{
Trump cabinet}}
{{
Trump Executive Office}}
{{
Trump presidency}}
{{
United States presidential election, 2000}}
{{
United States presidential election, 2016}}
{{
United States presidential election, 2020}}
{{
US Presidents}}
, as it's in all the other US Presidents articles. All of the family business boxes should be deleted, as well.
GoodDay (
talk) 12:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC){{
The Apprentice}}
. It doesn't even link to this article, so it does not provide the
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navigation that navboxes are supposed to offer. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs) 01:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
The Apprentice}}
also makese sense.
Jeanjung212 (
talk) 14:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC){{
Trump family}}
and {{
Trump media}}
when the other political templates are moved. {{
Trump businesses}}
I think is fine being removed currently as it doesn't add much and there already is considerable article space and wikilinks devoted to it in the main article.
Jeanjung212 (
talk) 14:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm too late for voting but E is fine for me. I'm wondering, though : aren't we going to have the same problem with the Mike Pence photo, since it was apparently taken by the same person ? Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 07:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion A discussion is taking place at Talk:Mike_Pence#Image. Please post your comments there and not here. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 01:02, 4 June 2017 (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.
Okay users, that is obviously intentional. Even though it is subversively hilarious IMO, it is still technically WP:NOTHERE. - Sleyece 12:47, 03 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Doesn't the family of Trump adviser Jared Kushner own 666 Fifth Avenue. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You guys notice the page is hacked with a message? 73.98.160.69 ( talk) 07:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand that this is the most heavily trafficked of the US Presidents articles. But please, can we stop linking 45th to List of Presidents of the United States, in the infobox? We should be keeping these infoboxes as consistent as possible. GoodDay ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Corrections welcome here because possibly I misunderstand: User:Power~enwiki made at least 15 major edits and nobody here said a word. I agree with a few of those edits however some were disturbing and I can't object. It takes too much time to reach consensus and add material to this article, only to fall through a hole in the sanctions process, and have to start over again after any user with an account decides it's his day to edit. My time is worth more studying for school. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Those were some rather large shifts in the article. What should really happen next is the D in BRD. So before the slow edit war starts, what are some of the concerns with the changes? PackMecEng ( talk) 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
When I go to the Wiki page there is no mention of his height. When I google "Wiki Donald Trump Height", then Google uses Wikipedia as a source of him being 1m98. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.109.39 ( talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"figuring it was $4.1 billion in 2015 (405th in the world, 133d in the U.S.)."
133d should be changed to 133rd EggsInMyPockets ( talk) 15:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Started a new article that I see as important and needs development and some more content. It is here: Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference. Casprings ( talk) 15:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
IMO it's way too early for an article like this. Maybe later if the Special Counsel starts making noise about it. But the information we have right now is perfectly able to be covered in a few paragraphs in the "White House attempts to influence the investigation" section in the "Russian interference" article. Also, I don't think we have solid enough sourcing for a bald assertion in Wikipedia's voice that he interfered. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Footnote 386 is a news article titled, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence". However, former FBI Director Comey testified under oath today that this news article was almost entirely wrong, so we shouldn't continue to leave the impression that this news article's accuracy has not been seriously challenged. See, for example:
“ | Easley, Jonathan. "Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories", The Hill (June 8, 2017): "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled 'Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence'.... Cotton asked Comey if that story was 'almost entirely wrong,' and Comey said that it was." | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"A made statement B; C made statement D", not
"A made statement B; however, C made statement D."-- Dervorguilla ( talk) 16:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"Members of Trump's campaign and later his White House staff, particularly Flynn, were in contact with Russian officials both before and after the November election. However, former FBI Director James Comey has called that New York Times article almost entirely wrong."Is that really an effective use of space? Or is there something extra we want to say there that does rely on the NYTimes article, so that we can dispute its accuracy in the next sentence? ~ Awilley ( talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Awilley: Then that makes the discussion moot right? There is no claim from the NYT and no need to include Comey's repudiation of it.- Mr X 23:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is too large right now. I propose that the entire "Side Ventures" section be removed.
I note that none of his these ventures compare in importance to his three most important and notable activities:
Be it the USFL or Trump University, they're not nearly as important. They should be removed from this article and included only in Business career of Donald Trump, or else discussed more briefly in the "Real estate business" section. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI I have summarized the Comey section. — JFG talk 06:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Article here: /info/en/?search=Christopher_A._Wray
Casprings ( talk) 12:04, June 7, 2017 (UTC)
For those who don't remember me: I am the one in WP who knows about the President's German roots, and I wrote the relevant articles in de.WP. Mostly based on Gwenda Blair: The Trumps.
Donald's German grandpa was born Friedrich Trump in Germany, and it is fair to mention this. He sticked to this name in his first years in NY where he lived in a mostly German milieu (which was common in the US before WW I). But when he went to Seattle, he became an American in every respect (Blair) and changed his first name to Fred or Frederick. So in the sentence concerning his death, Friedrich should be set back to Frederick. And somehow the discrepancy should be explained.
In case of questions, please ping me. -- Klaus Frisch ( talk) 19:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
There is the line "Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating much free media coverage." right at the beginning of this article. That seems like it is a bit biased, because while true that a lot of statements were false, that is true for many if not all US politicians. This statement should go under the 2016 Presidential Campaign section, or be reworded as such to sound less biased. Maybe something as simple as just removing the "or false".
2601:8C2:4280:C0D:D51A:6EAB:5A4D:F7A1 ( talk) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Infobox
Please change from
"The Wharton School (B.S. in Econ.)"
To
"The Wharton School (B.S. in Econ.)"
Schistocyte ( talk) 13:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Note. Template:Thin space causes thin spaces to "not word wrap." Sorry I wasn't aware of that before answering. I don't think we have a problem because the words themselves won't wrap. Anyway. Just posting this here in case somebody ever wants to restore the template. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up it's likely to be deleted. [17] -- NeilN talk to me 03:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The Trump administration should be punished for this farcical state of affairs by putting up the most unflattering public domain image of Trump we can find. It won't take long for the White House to release a decent official portrait to the public domain if we do that. I just can't even... -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It's aesthetically appropriate and also consistent for the portrait to feature the American flag in the background, as is the case with other Wikipedia articles of recent former presidents. As soon as someone is able to secure such a photo, it should definitely be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzhu07 ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The "Pic A" seems like a good stopgap until we settle on a more permanent image, and it might do as the permanent one as well. It's not super-high-quality, but Trump supporters will appreciate a photo that makes him look reasonably good (and opponents can take heart in the image showing a horse's ass!). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I actually prefer the crop created by User:Jean-Jacques Georges, listed here on the left as picture B. To me it is clearer, better focused, and has a somewhat better expression. And the background is less cluttered. But I will accept either. And I think we should leave "A" in the infobox for now. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer pic B if not for its very low res. Overall, I like pic A as a replacement, but I'd suggest removing the empty space above Trump's head. κατάστασ η 18:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Both A and B look pretty awful with a creepy smile, poor lighting, poor focus. I'm starting to trawl through the myriad pictures of Trump since he came to office. Here's a first suggestion as Picture C: neutral expression, good focus, high resolution, clean crop. Will look for others asap. — JFG talk 20:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Added Pic D: 1. Better to show part of the thing above his head than to crop right down to his hair, which is extremely bad form in portraits. (Unless the photo was taken in front of a blank, completely uniform background, there will always be something appearing to come out of his head. For example, a cropped Pic C would have has multiple spokes coming out of his head. I merely cropped out enough to avoid it looking like a leaf and being unduly distracting.) 2. 0.8:1 aspect ratio, pretty much standard for portraits, at least in the U.S. Same as an 8x10 photo. 3. Doesn't chop off his lapel pin. 4. Pic A seems overexposed to me, along with other problems including overcropping. Pic C would face outward away from the text, which is an automatic disqualifier. ―
Mandruss
☎ 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, it doesn't matter. He looks like an idiot in any picture. I prefer images that aren't so closely cropped, but really there's no way to polish that turd. --
Scjessey (
talk) 22:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
|
OT
|
---|
::If someone made the above comment on the Barack Obama page, Scjessey would be the first to remove it and to call for the person to be banned. Anythingyouwant wants to remove it but I'd like for it to remain to reflect Scjessey's bias and the crude manner in which he expresses his opinions.--
William S. Saturn (
talk) 18:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
|
@ Mandruss: Regarding picture C, I disagree that facing away from the text is "an automatic disqualifier": it's a criterion among others to help choose the best picture. To me, facial exxpression, focus and lighting are much more important. See also the infobox pictures of current world leaders Emmanuel Macron, Paolo Gentiloni and Donald Tusk. However Vladimir Putin agreed to face the text! — JFG talk 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hold up there... As an OTRS agent who was consulted on the ticket relating to this image, and active on the deletion request (which was started out of process, should have been deleted on the spot after OTRS agent requested it, but were waiting for something on the ticket, so never did it), I must make it clear it is not CC-licensed, and that there is no clear evidence that the statement on whitehouse.gov is legally true. It is unfortunate that I can't reveal the info on the OTRS ticket, but you just have to take the OTRS agents words for it, and the trust that the Commons community knows what they are doing when it comes to copyright laws (and policies of their project). --( t) Josve05a ( c) 00:27, 4 June 2017 (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.
Please state your subjective preference. If and when the Commons discussion closes as Delete, the image with the greatest support here will be installed. This will be regardless of amount of participation or degree of consensus. The "winning" support will likely be less than 50% given the number of choices, but there will not be enough time to narrow the field to 2 and re-vote. This will be followed by an RfC to establish a more durable consensus. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
So, JFG, do you concur that consensus 1 should be stricken at this point with a note and a link to this parent section? I lack the TE authority, and I would have been scared off by the giant yellow edit warning anyway. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see undeletion discussion of the official portrait images on Commons: c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you please add President Trump's parents to the sidebar on his page? Figfires ( talk) 11:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Since Melania Trump is mentioned in the paragraph about the groping tape, should her comments be included? (I think she dismissed them as normal locker-room talk). 87.247.53.24 ( talk) 02:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Has no place on this talk page. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Public-figure policy
Analogous advice from the Reporters Committee• Get independent corroboration. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for the source's own purposes. • Just because someone else said it does not mean that an organization cannot be sued for republishing it. ( The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed.) The 'conduit' fallacyA common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement is clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so. A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you are simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense. When the press reports that X has leveled an accusation against Y, it may be held to account not only for the truth of the fact that the accusation was made, but also for the steps taken to verify the truth of the accusation. (AP Stylebook, 2015 ed.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 13:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ummm, Dervoguilla, you need to read WP:LEGAL or you run the risk of getting indeffed. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
|
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. ( WP:BLP.)
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ( WP:PUBLICFIGURE.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's say you have reason to think that an RS (the Post) and the subject (Trump) could be hostile to each other. According to the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press, even a responsible, reputable organization could have a vendetta against someone and could unintentionally misrepresent some facts about that person. So, you can't rely on the Post to be accurate here. You need to confirm what it's saying. You need to find a second, independent RS.
"Get independent corroboration whenever possible. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for his or her own purposes... Don’t rely on someone else to be accurate." ("vendetta. A prolonged [mutual enmity] marked by bitter hostility [between individuals or factions] <waging a literary vendetta> <conduct partisan vendettas>. Corroborate. Confirm <Everyone corroborated what he had said>.) Gregg P. Leslie, ed., The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed. (Arlington: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2011), 10; Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 01:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You have to get the article right. ( WP:BLP.) So, if a particular passage relates to a (living) public figure, you have to come up with a second source. ( WP:PUBLICFIGURE.) If the alleged incident actually did occur, some other source would have alleged it too.
This is common sense... To be continued (soon!), with an example from the article] -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 00:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Illustration. "Trump is officially under investigation... Special counsel investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice..." Julie Vitkovskaya, " Trump Is Officially under Investigation. How Did We Get Here?", Washington Post, June 15, 2017. Had Trump been officially under investigation, some independent third-party RS would most likely have made that allegation too! They didn't, so JFG had to leave it out.
(And, as we now know, the alleged incident didn't actually occur.)
No second, independent RS had alleged the fact, so if JFG had chosen to go ahead and add a statement about it to the article, I could have just removed it for POV; but then I would have had to begin yet another discussion...
Some of the facts in the article are likely to get disputed. A few may be about persons non-notable or dead; those can stay. The others would need to get double-sourced or go. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)