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 75 | ← | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
Earlier today Atsme changed the title of that subsection from "False statements" to "False, exaggerated or distorted statements." I disagree with that change. The fact checkers are not calling him out for exaggerating; they are calling him out for saying things that are simply false - factually incorrect. The Reliable Sources quoted in that section say "false or misleading" (twice), "inaccurate", and "misstatements". I think we should change the title back. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Not true - read the NYTimes article. They are specific statements they're calling out - the higher quality RS qualify what statements they are calling out. Don't forget, we should be using specific statements, not generalizations. For example, is it really a falsehood to say more people watched the inauguration when you consider 8 years later, people were watching on different devices? This is still a BLP, and while we have some leniency with PUBLICFIGURE, we still have to use in-text attribution when the claims are as vague as these. That is exactly why I wrote the paragraphs the way I did and used in-text attribution to quote the source. You have more leeway in the Presidency of... but I would still steer clear of generalizations. Oh, and Melanie - call an RfC if you are in disagreement because local consensus just isn't going to cut it. Atsme 📞 📧 01:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Another, kind of minor thing in that section, but I will bring it here since there was disagreement at the article. In the "False statements" section, the first sentence used to read As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks
. Atsme changed that first sentence to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks.
I changed that to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements since assuming the presidency, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks.
with the edit summary "not just the first 100 days". The paragraph includes fact-check tallies from 100 days, 99 days, and 263 days, as well as more general statements not qualified as to what time period they are covering. She restored the "during his first 100 days as president" wording, with the edit summary "the first few sentences are cited to the 1st 100 days only, then it changes to different periods and citations". I don’t think we should specify "first 100 days" in the opening sentence of the paragraph when that doesn’t apply to the whole paragraph. And now that I look at it (I missed this before), it should say "false statements," not "false, exaggerated or distorted claims," because the latter does not reflect what the sources say. --
MelanieN (
talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." ref:"The New York Times 2018" The New York Times qualified that claims of Trump's falsehoods and misstatements are "not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments."By removing that statement and what I added made that section unquestionably noncompliant with NPOV....not only because it was based on cherrypicked statements by Trump the media used for analysis, but because the lead in sentence generalizes the whole thing. It's wrong, and it's noncompliant with policy. We don't call any BLP a "liar", especially when #22 Consensus above says not to do that. We are now in BLP vio territory. Atsme 📞 📧 03:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, I'm not exactly sure what you think this means:
"These are not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments." ref:"The New York Times 2018"
That looks like a standard disclaimer. They are not making some sort of ratio statement, for example 73% true vs. 27% false. In fact, one never sees such things. They are choosing to look at statements which accuracy have been doubted. Then they analyze them. That's what fact checkers do. They don't examine statements which are not questioned. True statements don't usually get questioned, only statements that seem dubious. Then they are rated as true, mixed, or false (or some such system). Our section covers the false ones.
The same standard is used for all public persons and politicians. Trump is judged by the same standards used by all members of the International Fact-Checking Network. The major fact checkers are members and are nonpartisan: Poynter Institute, PolitiFact, FactCheck, Snopes, and The Washington Post.
Trump rates as far more deceptive because he is, not because he's been treated unfairly. Them's the facts, and I don't have the luxury of ignoring those facts, as some do. Editors here should be better than that. Ideally we should take it for granted that our politicians attempt to always be honest with us. They lose credibility when they frequently let us down. We shouldn't be in this situation, where neither Americans nor foreign allies can trust Trump because he lacks credibility. He can't be trusted because he is dishonest so much of the time. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that MrX has restored [6] the previous text of the article since we should discuss such changes before implementing them. That unfortunately removed the March 2018 NYT article you added, which I think added valuable balance to the section, and I would be OK with re-adding it if others agree. My opposition to "exaggerated and distorted claims" still stands. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed."" and it's at least a little tangential to the central fact that his statements and comments are very frequently at at odds with objective reality.- Mr X 🖋 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN, I don't agree with
MrX regarding his reasons for opposing the following: "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed.
" I paraphrased and used in-line text attribution from the
NYTimes which, in exact wording, states: "But the episode goes to the heart of a more fundamental debate about Mr. Trump: When does he know the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed?"
My paraphrased lead into the quote represents what the source says; however, I would not be opposed to quoting the published sentence in its entirety if it offers a path to resolution. I also object to the false comparisons being made about Trump's falsehoods vs those of past presidents, primarily because no consideration was given to the fact that Trump has done his best to avoid the measured/rehearsed/prepared press conferences while opting for public rallies, conferences, Twitter and on-the-fly exchanges with
media - and he's had many - leaving him far more exposed to media criticism whenever he gets a fact wrong, exaggerates, misstates, or distorts information. He clearly lacks the suave and political posh of those who were groomed for that position. I believe it is important information that should be included in his BLP because it speaks volumes as to who he is, his demeanor, what he lacks in political polish, why his base continues to support him, etc.
Atsme
📞
📧 06:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
"... the false comparisons being made..."until the end. Also, your paraphrase was not really a faithful representation of the source. See Space4Time3Continuum2x's comment for more information.- Mr X 🖋 19:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Here it is. We can use it here, as a start. I have relied heavily on factual, not opinion, sources, IOW fact checkers and researchers. These are not opinions, but descriptions of actual research and statistics used by fact checkers. It can no doubt be improved. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. [1] [2] [3] [4] Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, [1] and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. [5] The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." [6]
Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." [7]
Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true." [8]
Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. [9] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously. [9]
Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. [10] [11] [12] [13] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, [14] [15] [16] Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented " alternative facts". [17] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." [18]
Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." [19] She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful". [20]
Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He lies about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning. [21]
In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency." [22]
David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. [23] [24] Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. [25] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. [26] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving [27] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." [28]
In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada. [29]
Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; [30] [31] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; [32] [33] [34] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; [35] [36] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". [37] [38] [39]
Sources
- ^ a b Linda Qiu, Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days, The New York Times (April 29, 2017).
- ^ Glenn Kessler & Michelle Ye Hee Lee, President Trump's first 100 days: The fact check tally, The Washington Post (May 1, 2017).
- ^ Linda Qiu, In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump. The New York Times (June 22, 2017).
- ^ Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication., New York Times (August 7, 2017).
- ^ "President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days". The Washington Post. November 14, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
{{ cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
( help)- ^ Ye, Hee Lee Michelle; Kessler, Glenn; Kelly, Meg. "President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
- ^ Milbank, Dana (July 1, 2016). "The facts behind Donald Trump's many falsehoods". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
- ^ Konnikova, Maria (January 20, 2017). "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico Magazine. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
- ^ a b "Trump's trust problem". Politico. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
- ^ "From the archives: Sean Spicer on Inauguration Day crowds". PolitiFact. January 21, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "FACT CHECK: Was Donald Trump's Inauguration the Most Viewed in History?". Snopes. January 22, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "The Facts on Crowd Size". FactCheck. January 23, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ Rein, Lisa (March 6, 2017). "Here are the photos that show Obama's inauguration crowd was bigger than Trump's". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2017.
- ^ Hirschfeld Davis, Julie; Rosenberg, Matthew (January 21, 2017). "With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift". The New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2017.
- ^ Makarechi, Kia (January 2, 2014). "Trump Spokesman Sean Spicer's Lecture on Media Accuracy Is Peppered With Lies". Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
- ^ Kessler, Glenn. "Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
- ^ Jaffe, Alexandra. "Kellyanne Conway: WH Spokesman Gave 'Alternative Facts' on Inauguration Crowd". NBC News. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
- ^ Blake, Aaron (January 22, 2017). "Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump's team has 'alternative facts.' Which pretty much says it all". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
- ^ DePaulo, Bella (December 7, 2017). "Perspective - I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ DePaulo, Bella (December 9, 2017). "How President Trump's Lies Are Different From Other People's". Psychology Today. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ Lind, Dara (October 26, 2016). "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". Vox. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ Smith, Jeremy Adam (March 24, 2017). "How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support". Scientific American. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
- ^ Fahrenthold, David (October 4, 2016). "Trump's co-author on 'The Art of the Deal' donates $55,000 royalty check to charity". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2017.
- ^ "Journalist Says Trump Foundation May Have Engaged In 'Self-Dealing'". NPR. September 28, 2016. Retrieved March 1, 2018.
{{ cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
( help)- ^ Eder, Steve (October 3, 2016). "State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
- ^ Fahrenthold, David A. (November 22, 2016). "Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on 'self-dealing,' new filing to IRS shows". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
- ^ Farhi, Paul (April 10, 2017). "Washington Post's David Fahrenthold wins Pulitzer Prize for dogged reporting of Trump's philanthropy". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2017.
- ^ The Pulitzer Prizes (April 10, 2017). "2017 Pulitzer Prize: National Reporting". The Pulitzer Prizes. Retrieved April 10, 2017.
- ^ Dawsey, Josh; Paletta, Damian; Werner, Erica. "In fundraising speech, Trump says he made up trade claim in meeting with Justin Trudeau". The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 March 2018.
- ^ "Trump on Birtherism: Wrong, and Wrong". FactCheck. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk". PolitiFact. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump's electoral college victory not a 'massive landslide'". PolitiFact. December 11, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump Landslide? Nope". FactCheck. November 29, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ Seipel, Arnie (December 11, 2016). "FACT CHECK: Trump Falsely Claims A 'Massive Landslide Victory'". NPR. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Pants on Fire for Trump claim that millions voted illegally". PolitiFact. November 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump Claims Without Evidence that 3 to 5 Million Voted Illegally, Vows Investigation". Snopes. January 25, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "FALSE: Donald Trump Opposed the Iraq War from the Beginning". Snopes. September 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War". PolitiFact. September 7, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Donald Trump and the Iraq War". FactCheck. February 19, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
Atsme, please look this over for any potential BLP vios. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
So what do you call it when someone gets the facts wrong? Is that lying? What about when you're thinking someone is talking about the blue car, and you say no, the seats are beige, but they're actually talking about the red car with white leather. Is that lying? What about when you don't reveal all of your strategy when making a deal, and just say what you think will get the deal made - is that lying? Oh, and the fact that other presidents didn't use Twitter, or make as many public statements as this one - does that count? I say it's FALSE EQUIVALENCY to say one president lied more than another if you don't use a fair comparison. How many speeches and tweets did Trump engage in during his first 100 days vs Obama, or Bush, or Clinton? This whole falsehood thing is just plain ridiculous. Atsme 📞 📧 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"do you really fail to grasp..."WP:NPA please, Mandruss. The discussion is ended? Why? This holding onto POV content and lack of balance is the perfect example of why "verifiability over truth" is an incredibly flawed policy, and in the end is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia will never be considered a reliable source. In this case (as with so many others), common sense and a strict adherence to true balance is what should supercede "we follow the sources". Why can't we discuss making that happen? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks.It automatically begs the question, what statements were false? Are you forgetting how many readers we have that don't hate Trump, and actually support his policies? This isn't about what you or I like or don't like. It's about getting the article right. I'm saying we need to more closely reflect what exceptional sources have said, and to use inline citations and in-text attribution to quote contentious statements per MOS & NPOV - Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source) which is why I wrote:
Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. Linda Qiu with The New York Times wrote: "The Times has logged at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office.There was no valid reason to revert that edit, Melanie. We need to more closely adhere to policy by using in-text attribution cited to quotes in the source, and to qualify how the media made their determination that he made false, exaggerated or distorted claims. MrX reverted my edit for no good reason and that is disruptive. I'm left with no other option but to call an RfC and get consensus in an effort to be compliant with policy, and that's pretty sad when any editor has to work under such conditions. Atsme 📞 📧 06:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
You cannot be serious with that purprosed text right? That gives just an astounding amount of weight to a tiny part of his presidency, let alone his whole life. I strongly suggest you withdraw at this point. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"this is arguably one of his most notable character traits (narcissim, dishonesty, bullying"Narcissism is a psychological, mental illness diagnosis and I'm betting you're not qualified to make that diagnosis. Dishonesty is measured by different yardsticks depending on your political preference - be honest, what president hasn't been guilty of it? Bullying is a subjective assessment and also measured by different yardsticks dependent on whatever side of the political fence you reside. Bill Clinton's accusers in the way of sexual abuse, rape, harassment most certainly refer to him as a bully (not to mention he was dishonest enough that he ended up being impeached for it). Aside from all this, WP:UNDUE does apply several times over in regard to your proposed text. And please remember to follow BLP guidelines for discussion on article subjects. If you don't have an official diagnosis to prove Trump is a narcissist, you should strike that comment as it is a violation of BLP guidelines for talk pages. We don't comment on the mental health of article subjects without reliable sources to support such commentary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"Stay on-topic. Don't deflect. We don't fall for such things here."Lol! Thanks for the best laugh over irony and deflection I will likely have all week. Maybe the remainder of the month. Truth is, from getting to know you better through your talk page comments, I'm pretty sure you may have written the manual for deflecting and veering off-topic (your gaslighting efforts are transparent and have not gone unnoticed by others in addition to me, BR). As far as my political leanings -- sorry, but you really have me un-pegged and no clue where I stand politically. Truly, you don't. I know that hive-mindedness and groupthink are the thing these days, but my politics go back to the Eisenhower Administration (yes, I was alive then) when live and let live was an American value, no one really cared what someone else's political leanings were, and along with religion, politics were just not talked about among strangers. I long for those days to return, but probably will not live long enough to every see the pendulum swing that direction again. In Wikipedia, my only political leanings are in the way of neutral editing, honesty in content, and NPOV tone in articles - that's it. And really, if Wikipedia's policies took WP:OUTING seriously and that policy were complete, trying to guess or claiming one knows the politics of others when they haven't announced it would be a violation. It's no different than trying to guess someone's occupation or where they live. None of it is anyone else's business unless the editor being "investigated" by those opposing their very presence here chose to disclose it. In other words, just stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Extraneous info | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Fact checkersThis is supplemental information: -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 03:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
|
WP:BLPTALK states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." and editors are arguing that some of their comments are related to making content choices. However the "not related to making content choices" exception does not mean that editors are free to denigrate living people if they can somehow tie it to content. For example, saying that "x is a pathological liar and we shouldn't give her lies any credence" will get you sanctioned. Do the extra work, provide a reliable source that says "x is a habitual liar whose statements are often false", and refrain from giving the impression that you are offering a personal opinion of the subject. If necessary, I am prepared to add a new AE restriction to that effect but I hope it won't come to that. -- NeilN talk to me 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we should create a heading or sub-heading devoted to Trump's promotion of various conspiracy theorists. These include Obama being a Muslim, Obama not being American, climate change being a hoax invented by the Chinese, vaccines causing autism, millions of illegal aliens voting with the help of the Democrats, Ted Cruz' dad being involved in the Kennedy assassination, and so on. What say you guys? Should there be a sub-heading devoted to the conspiracy theories of Trump? Steeletrap ( talk) 04:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing."
NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
Also, I am not aware that Mueller, OIG, or Nunes/Gowdy are looking into - alleged, whatever - Trump falsehoods, promotions of conspiracy theories, etc.In my book, "alleged, whatever" covers a lot of territory and so does "etc." Atsme 📞 📧 22:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey User:Objective3000, the comment says not to remove but there is not problem in doing so; Portal:Donald Trump/Intro works just well without that paragraph. Could you self revert as this is WP:UNDUE and nothing has been proven yet? L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.Further down MOS:LEADREL it says:
...although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.How about letting us know exactly what material is being referenced here? Atsme 📞 📧 16:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
<section end=Lead text />
tag, not the content preceding it.) ―
Mandruss
☎ 23:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.WP:BALANCE states:
"...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."And you might also check out Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#In-article conflict and #Reprints in that same essay. Atsme 📞 📧 07:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
the latter of which is pretty much all that is required for inclusion of material in an article.- WP:ONUS, part of WP:V, says otherwise. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
...material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage"....Pretty sure there was an "and" and two additional reasons in my post. O3000 ( talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.I'm still unsure what material is being discussed in this instance, but I do know that unsupported allegations don't get a free pass just because it's published on 20 different news sites. Our job is to use editorial judgment and discretion when considering biased opinions, unsubstantiated allegations and derogatory material about a BLP, which includes not saying it in WikiVoice, especially when the source is an opinion piece, commentary or analysis. Atsme 📞 📧 14:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"massive coverage" could be the result of reprints of a wire agency report….Well, it could be. But that has nothing to do with this case since it has been weekly, often daily, news for a year in innumerable sources. There have been 22 indictments. The subject of the article talks about it weekly. And we aren’t predicting, forecasting, or speculating about anything. O3000 ( talk) 14:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The sixth and last paragraph of the lead says:
"After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in an investigation into coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and related matters. Trump has repeatedly denied any such collusion."
This appears to WP:UNDUE weight to an incident that has yet to be proven. Yes, it has received massive media coverage, but most similar incidents are not even mentioned in the lead for other articles. For example, take Hillary Clinton, there is not even mention of her e-mail controversy, even if it received massive media coverage. So do you want the paragraph to be removed? L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 02:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and for context, I initially removed the content, but was reverted but Objective3000. As I am not allowed to reinstate previously challenged material, I am posting here. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 02:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
An example of how a lie by Trump shows up under another more credible person's name. [7] [8] [9] [10]
Does anybody here believe that Doc Ronny Jackson actually weighed Trump or administered the Montreal test? SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Maggie Haberman: "The dictation is abnormal, a doctor agreeing to it is abnormal and a doctor talking about it is abnormal." Twitter -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, my - here we go...
CNN The person familiar with the episode described altogether different circumstances, saying the handover had been completed peacefully, complicated only by Bornstein's fumbling with his photocopy machine to make copies of the records.
. Please, let the breaking news incubate 🐣.
Atsme
📞
📧 20:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
No IReliable Source has challenged that Jackson did the tests he said he did. Your skepticism is pure opinion and Original Research. As for Bornstein, he has done himself no favors in the credibility department by his changing stories. Anything he says should be attributed to him, and if others challenge what he says, that should also be included. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO - you seem to have confused Bornstein with some fantasy about Jackson. Yes, most folks do believe Jackson weighed Trump and did a cognitive test. Rumors of Trump having health issues in late 2017 is sort of like the fad of Hillary being unfit due to health in late 2016. (Silly bits about her needing pillows to sit upright, stumbling, an actual head knock exaggerated, a real collapse from hiding pneumonia.) Seems just clickbait and partisan pitching doubt or distractions, but hey it's what the niche markets like so Limbaugh sold it one year and Maddow sold it the other way the following year. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Forcing Bornstein to hand over original of medical records. CNN's source, "the person familiar with the episode", actually confirms the basics of Bornstein's description of the incident: Three people with a letter, i.e., not the usual medical records release form, showed up unannounced and asked for the records, and - when a flustered Bornstein was unable to photocopy them in the next 20 minutes - Schiller (who's what - 6 ft. 5 or 6? and at the time was representing the President of the United States and accompanied by Trump Organization VP and Chief Legal Officer Alan Garten and an unknown "large man") told him to hand over the originals. The originals are the physician's property and responsibility, and coercing him to hand them over now is dictator style and not the standard operating procedure of the White House Medical Unit, as Sanders claimed (although - these days - who knows). Seems relevant enough to go into either this article or the one on the Presidency of Donald Trump. Bornstein was wrong for signing the "healthiest president ever" letter, for telling the NYT which medications his patient took, and for not telling Schiller (why was he in NY in the first place?) to come back later or the next day for the copies. However, taking Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics out of the picture, what we're left with is abuse of power and the WH saying that there was "nothing out of the ordinary". Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
It may ultimately come to nothing...I oppose inclusion of this incident as breaking news (NOTNEWS). Odd that the doctor waited a year to disclose...but that seems to be a pattern with regards to Trump and people who appear to either hold a grudge after being replaced or may see financial opportunity or other form of personal gain by telling "their" he said/she said story, real or perceived. Atsme 📞 📧 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
oh for cats' sake, if this was any other president, any other politician, this - that the offices of a physician were raided to destroy "evidence" - would most certainly be included. But since it's Trump people bend over backwards to come up with ridiculous reasons like "NOTNEWS" to avoid including it. The only bias here is this inane pro-Trump cheer-leading and obfuscation. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
|
During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a glowing letter of health, which he later said Trump himself had dictated, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges.On the raid of Bornstein's office I don't know where that would fit in the article and I would hesitate to include it at all without seeing more significant coverage. ~ Awilley ( talk) 06:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump released a hyperbolic and superlative-laden letter signed by his personal physician, Dr. Harold Bornstein, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. In the face of skepticism from the press, Bornstein insisted that he was the author of the letter. In April, 2018, Bornstein stated to the press that Trump had dictated the letter.
~ Awilley ( talk) 16:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health—which he later said Trump himself had dictated—praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges.
Good 'un, but what purpose does it serve our readers? Is the purpose to compare what different doctors have said about Trump's health, or is the purpose to inform our readers that 2 different doctor exams have shown him to be in good heath? I say stay away from guessing at what Trump wanted people to think or what the discussion between Trump & his doctor was about. WP should not be analyzing the thoughts of our BLPs, and certainly not based on what Bornstein said. If consensus determines his health exams need to be included, let's throw-in his TV interview with Dr. Oz, the Bornstein results, and of course, White House Physician Ronny Jackson....or we could just add a sentence or two and say medical professionals who examined Trump determined that he was physically fit to serve as president...which is all that really matters anyway. Atsme 📞 📧 22:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
So, @ Awilley: it appears to me that you could put your latest version into the article and we can close this thread out. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter I think the Cincinnati Enquirer converted the occupancy rates they reported in their 2002 article (400 rented, 800 vacant) to percentages in their 2016 article which I removed because it was based largely on Trump's claims at Ohio campaign events and in "Art of the Deal", and also because, 14 years later, the Swifton Village maintenance man's memories had shifted a bit. I kept the wording "100%", though, because in 2002 the maintenance man also said, "In less than two years, there wasn't a vacancy." Maybe changing the wording to "boosted the occupancy rate to full" might be better? I wasn't too happy with "revitalizing" either because the sources don't actually mention more than a renovation but they probably spent big bucks on attracting tenants, as well, so I left it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:03, 20 May 2018 (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.
Apologies if this has been addressed already (the archive is gargantuan), but why is the Obama birth certificate controversy nestled under the "Racial views" section? What does the former president's birthplace have to do with race? Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 01:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"hinting at a "foreign" background for Obama"He does have a "foreign background". His father was Kenyan and Obama lived in Indonesia for many years.
"he knew full well he was tapping into the racist views of many Americans"And you know this because you can read his mind? Because you have a direct quote from a reliable, verifiable source where he said it? Of course, the answer to this is 'no' for both questions. Don't speculate and please be aware of BLP policy for article talk pages.
"Whether it showed that Trump himself is really racist on this front is unclear"It's unclear because you are making the scenario up.
"he was certainly using the Birther controversy as a racist tool."Bullshit. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"Do you really think nobody had racist views against Obama? Do you really think nobody had those views reinforced by the Birther controversy? Do you really believe Trump is so stupid he had no idea it would have that effect? Do you think it bothered him?"None of these things have anything to do with this article if you don't have a reliable source and/or direct quotes to back it all up. So please stop pretending it does (or thinking it does). If you want to believe all this, fine. But your personal feelings aren't reliable sources. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Here we go again. Please see Archive 78, Archive 77, Archive 73, Archive 21, etc. We have discussed this to death. The most recent discussion, now in Archive 78, was a formal discussion with a formal close. That close showed a consensus that material about birtherism is appropriate for the Donald Trump article and should remain here. The closer left it open whether to keep that material under “Racial views” or move it to “Political career and affiliations up to 2015”, with the default being to keep it in Racial views because it is there now. We can discuss, here, where in the article to put the material since there was no consensus at the last discussion. Whether birtherism has racial roots is not open to question, we have long since settled that. Birtherism emphasized Obama as the “Other” and challenged his right to be president, and that was very appealing to a lot of the Republican “base” for purely racial reasons. Whether Trump himself promoted birtherism out of personal racism, or simply because it was working for him in the polls and ratings, is undetermined. That was one of the reasons given for possibly moving the birtherism material to the campaign section. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
personal disparagement — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
According to
Andrevan, |
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 75 | ← | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
Earlier today Atsme changed the title of that subsection from "False statements" to "False, exaggerated or distorted statements." I disagree with that change. The fact checkers are not calling him out for exaggerating; they are calling him out for saying things that are simply false - factually incorrect. The Reliable Sources quoted in that section say "false or misleading" (twice), "inaccurate", and "misstatements". I think we should change the title back. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Not true - read the NYTimes article. They are specific statements they're calling out - the higher quality RS qualify what statements they are calling out. Don't forget, we should be using specific statements, not generalizations. For example, is it really a falsehood to say more people watched the inauguration when you consider 8 years later, people were watching on different devices? This is still a BLP, and while we have some leniency with PUBLICFIGURE, we still have to use in-text attribution when the claims are as vague as these. That is exactly why I wrote the paragraphs the way I did and used in-text attribution to quote the source. You have more leeway in the Presidency of... but I would still steer clear of generalizations. Oh, and Melanie - call an RfC if you are in disagreement because local consensus just isn't going to cut it. Atsme 📞 📧 01:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Another, kind of minor thing in that section, but I will bring it here since there was disagreement at the article. In the "False statements" section, the first sentence used to read As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks
. Atsme changed that first sentence to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks.
I changed that to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements since assuming the presidency, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks.
with the edit summary "not just the first 100 days". The paragraph includes fact-check tallies from 100 days, 99 days, and 263 days, as well as more general statements not qualified as to what time period they are covering. She restored the "during his first 100 days as president" wording, with the edit summary "the first few sentences are cited to the 1st 100 days only, then it changes to different periods and citations". I don’t think we should specify "first 100 days" in the opening sentence of the paragraph when that doesn’t apply to the whole paragraph. And now that I look at it (I missed this before), it should say "false statements," not "false, exaggerated or distorted claims," because the latter does not reflect what the sources say. --
MelanieN (
talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." ref:"The New York Times 2018" The New York Times qualified that claims of Trump's falsehoods and misstatements are "not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments."By removing that statement and what I added made that section unquestionably noncompliant with NPOV....not only because it was based on cherrypicked statements by Trump the media used for analysis, but because the lead in sentence generalizes the whole thing. It's wrong, and it's noncompliant with policy. We don't call any BLP a "liar", especially when #22 Consensus above says not to do that. We are now in BLP vio territory. Atsme 📞 📧 03:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, I'm not exactly sure what you think this means:
"These are not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments." ref:"The New York Times 2018"
That looks like a standard disclaimer. They are not making some sort of ratio statement, for example 73% true vs. 27% false. In fact, one never sees such things. They are choosing to look at statements which accuracy have been doubted. Then they analyze them. That's what fact checkers do. They don't examine statements which are not questioned. True statements don't usually get questioned, only statements that seem dubious. Then they are rated as true, mixed, or false (or some such system). Our section covers the false ones.
The same standard is used for all public persons and politicians. Trump is judged by the same standards used by all members of the International Fact-Checking Network. The major fact checkers are members and are nonpartisan: Poynter Institute, PolitiFact, FactCheck, Snopes, and The Washington Post.
Trump rates as far more deceptive because he is, not because he's been treated unfairly. Them's the facts, and I don't have the luxury of ignoring those facts, as some do. Editors here should be better than that. Ideally we should take it for granted that our politicians attempt to always be honest with us. They lose credibility when they frequently let us down. We shouldn't be in this situation, where neither Americans nor foreign allies can trust Trump because he lacks credibility. He can't be trusted because he is dishonest so much of the time. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that MrX has restored [6] the previous text of the article since we should discuss such changes before implementing them. That unfortunately removed the March 2018 NYT article you added, which I think added valuable balance to the section, and I would be OK with re-adding it if others agree. My opposition to "exaggerated and distorted claims" still stands. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed."" and it's at least a little tangential to the central fact that his statements and comments are very frequently at at odds with objective reality.- Mr X 🖋 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN, I don't agree with
MrX regarding his reasons for opposing the following: "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed.
" I paraphrased and used in-line text attribution from the
NYTimes which, in exact wording, states: "But the episode goes to the heart of a more fundamental debate about Mr. Trump: When does he know the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed?"
My paraphrased lead into the quote represents what the source says; however, I would not be opposed to quoting the published sentence in its entirety if it offers a path to resolution. I also object to the false comparisons being made about Trump's falsehoods vs those of past presidents, primarily because no consideration was given to the fact that Trump has done his best to avoid the measured/rehearsed/prepared press conferences while opting for public rallies, conferences, Twitter and on-the-fly exchanges with
media - and he's had many - leaving him far more exposed to media criticism whenever he gets a fact wrong, exaggerates, misstates, or distorts information. He clearly lacks the suave and political posh of those who were groomed for that position. I believe it is important information that should be included in his BLP because it speaks volumes as to who he is, his demeanor, what he lacks in political polish, why his base continues to support him, etc.
Atsme
📞
📧 06:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
"... the false comparisons being made..."until the end. Also, your paraphrase was not really a faithful representation of the source. See Space4Time3Continuum2x's comment for more information.- Mr X 🖋 19:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Here it is. We can use it here, as a start. I have relied heavily on factual, not opinion, sources, IOW fact checkers and researchers. These are not opinions, but descriptions of actual research and statistics used by fact checkers. It can no doubt be improved. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. [1] [2] [3] [4] Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, [1] and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. [5] The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." [6]
Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." [7]
Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true." [8]
Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. [9] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously. [9]
Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. [10] [11] [12] [13] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, [14] [15] [16] Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented " alternative facts". [17] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." [18]
Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." [19] She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful". [20]
Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He lies about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning. [21]
In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency." [22]
David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. [23] [24] Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. [25] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. [26] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving [27] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." [28]
In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada. [29]
Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; [30] [31] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; [32] [33] [34] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; [35] [36] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". [37] [38] [39]
Sources
- ^ a b Linda Qiu, Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days, The New York Times (April 29, 2017).
- ^ Glenn Kessler & Michelle Ye Hee Lee, President Trump's first 100 days: The fact check tally, The Washington Post (May 1, 2017).
- ^ Linda Qiu, In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump. The New York Times (June 22, 2017).
- ^ Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication., New York Times (August 7, 2017).
- ^ "President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days". The Washington Post. November 14, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
{{ cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
( help)- ^ Ye, Hee Lee Michelle; Kessler, Glenn; Kelly, Meg. "President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
- ^ Milbank, Dana (July 1, 2016). "The facts behind Donald Trump's many falsehoods". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
- ^ Konnikova, Maria (January 20, 2017). "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico Magazine. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
- ^ a b "Trump's trust problem". Politico. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
- ^ "From the archives: Sean Spicer on Inauguration Day crowds". PolitiFact. January 21, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "FACT CHECK: Was Donald Trump's Inauguration the Most Viewed in History?". Snopes. January 22, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "The Facts on Crowd Size". FactCheck. January 23, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ Rein, Lisa (March 6, 2017). "Here are the photos that show Obama's inauguration crowd was bigger than Trump's". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2017.
- ^ Hirschfeld Davis, Julie; Rosenberg, Matthew (January 21, 2017). "With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift". The New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2017.
- ^ Makarechi, Kia (January 2, 2014). "Trump Spokesman Sean Spicer's Lecture on Media Accuracy Is Peppered With Lies". Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
- ^ Kessler, Glenn. "Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
- ^ Jaffe, Alexandra. "Kellyanne Conway: WH Spokesman Gave 'Alternative Facts' on Inauguration Crowd". NBC News. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
- ^ Blake, Aaron (January 22, 2017). "Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump's team has 'alternative facts.' Which pretty much says it all". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
- ^ DePaulo, Bella (December 7, 2017). "Perspective - I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ DePaulo, Bella (December 9, 2017). "How President Trump's Lies Are Different From Other People's". Psychology Today. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ Lind, Dara (October 26, 2016). "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". Vox. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ Smith, Jeremy Adam (March 24, 2017). "How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support". Scientific American. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
- ^ Fahrenthold, David (October 4, 2016). "Trump's co-author on 'The Art of the Deal' donates $55,000 royalty check to charity". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2017.
- ^ "Journalist Says Trump Foundation May Have Engaged In 'Self-Dealing'". NPR. September 28, 2016. Retrieved March 1, 2018.
{{ cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
( help)- ^ Eder, Steve (October 3, 2016). "State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
- ^ Fahrenthold, David A. (November 22, 2016). "Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on 'self-dealing,' new filing to IRS shows". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
- ^ Farhi, Paul (April 10, 2017). "Washington Post's David Fahrenthold wins Pulitzer Prize for dogged reporting of Trump's philanthropy". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2017.
- ^ The Pulitzer Prizes (April 10, 2017). "2017 Pulitzer Prize: National Reporting". The Pulitzer Prizes. Retrieved April 10, 2017.
- ^ Dawsey, Josh; Paletta, Damian; Werner, Erica. "In fundraising speech, Trump says he made up trade claim in meeting with Justin Trudeau". The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 March 2018.
- ^ "Trump on Birtherism: Wrong, and Wrong". FactCheck. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk". PolitiFact. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump's electoral college victory not a 'massive landslide'". PolitiFact. December 11, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump Landslide? Nope". FactCheck. November 29, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ Seipel, Arnie (December 11, 2016). "FACT CHECK: Trump Falsely Claims A 'Massive Landslide Victory'". NPR. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Pants on Fire for Trump claim that millions voted illegally". PolitiFact. November 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump Claims Without Evidence that 3 to 5 Million Voted Illegally, Vows Investigation". Snopes. January 25, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "FALSE: Donald Trump Opposed the Iraq War from the Beginning". Snopes. September 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War". PolitiFact. September 7, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- ^ "Donald Trump and the Iraq War". FactCheck. February 19, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
Atsme, please look this over for any potential BLP vios. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
So what do you call it when someone gets the facts wrong? Is that lying? What about when you're thinking someone is talking about the blue car, and you say no, the seats are beige, but they're actually talking about the red car with white leather. Is that lying? What about when you don't reveal all of your strategy when making a deal, and just say what you think will get the deal made - is that lying? Oh, and the fact that other presidents didn't use Twitter, or make as many public statements as this one - does that count? I say it's FALSE EQUIVALENCY to say one president lied more than another if you don't use a fair comparison. How many speeches and tweets did Trump engage in during his first 100 days vs Obama, or Bush, or Clinton? This whole falsehood thing is just plain ridiculous. Atsme 📞 📧 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"do you really fail to grasp..."WP:NPA please, Mandruss. The discussion is ended? Why? This holding onto POV content and lack of balance is the perfect example of why "verifiability over truth" is an incredibly flawed policy, and in the end is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia will never be considered a reliable source. In this case (as with so many others), common sense and a strict adherence to true balance is what should supercede "we follow the sources". Why can't we discuss making that happen? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks.It automatically begs the question, what statements were false? Are you forgetting how many readers we have that don't hate Trump, and actually support his policies? This isn't about what you or I like or don't like. It's about getting the article right. I'm saying we need to more closely reflect what exceptional sources have said, and to use inline citations and in-text attribution to quote contentious statements per MOS & NPOV - Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source) which is why I wrote:
Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. Linda Qiu with The New York Times wrote: "The Times has logged at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office.There was no valid reason to revert that edit, Melanie. We need to more closely adhere to policy by using in-text attribution cited to quotes in the source, and to qualify how the media made their determination that he made false, exaggerated or distorted claims. MrX reverted my edit for no good reason and that is disruptive. I'm left with no other option but to call an RfC and get consensus in an effort to be compliant with policy, and that's pretty sad when any editor has to work under such conditions. Atsme 📞 📧 06:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
You cannot be serious with that purprosed text right? That gives just an astounding amount of weight to a tiny part of his presidency, let alone his whole life. I strongly suggest you withdraw at this point. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"this is arguably one of his most notable character traits (narcissim, dishonesty, bullying"Narcissism is a psychological, mental illness diagnosis and I'm betting you're not qualified to make that diagnosis. Dishonesty is measured by different yardsticks depending on your political preference - be honest, what president hasn't been guilty of it? Bullying is a subjective assessment and also measured by different yardsticks dependent on whatever side of the political fence you reside. Bill Clinton's accusers in the way of sexual abuse, rape, harassment most certainly refer to him as a bully (not to mention he was dishonest enough that he ended up being impeached for it). Aside from all this, WP:UNDUE does apply several times over in regard to your proposed text. And please remember to follow BLP guidelines for discussion on article subjects. If you don't have an official diagnosis to prove Trump is a narcissist, you should strike that comment as it is a violation of BLP guidelines for talk pages. We don't comment on the mental health of article subjects without reliable sources to support such commentary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"Stay on-topic. Don't deflect. We don't fall for such things here."Lol! Thanks for the best laugh over irony and deflection I will likely have all week. Maybe the remainder of the month. Truth is, from getting to know you better through your talk page comments, I'm pretty sure you may have written the manual for deflecting and veering off-topic (your gaslighting efforts are transparent and have not gone unnoticed by others in addition to me, BR). As far as my political leanings -- sorry, but you really have me un-pegged and no clue where I stand politically. Truly, you don't. I know that hive-mindedness and groupthink are the thing these days, but my politics go back to the Eisenhower Administration (yes, I was alive then) when live and let live was an American value, no one really cared what someone else's political leanings were, and along with religion, politics were just not talked about among strangers. I long for those days to return, but probably will not live long enough to every see the pendulum swing that direction again. In Wikipedia, my only political leanings are in the way of neutral editing, honesty in content, and NPOV tone in articles - that's it. And really, if Wikipedia's policies took WP:OUTING seriously and that policy were complete, trying to guess or claiming one knows the politics of others when they haven't announced it would be a violation. It's no different than trying to guess someone's occupation or where they live. None of it is anyone else's business unless the editor being "investigated" by those opposing their very presence here chose to disclose it. In other words, just stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Extraneous info | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Fact checkersThis is supplemental information: -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 03:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
|
WP:BLPTALK states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." and editors are arguing that some of their comments are related to making content choices. However the "not related to making content choices" exception does not mean that editors are free to denigrate living people if they can somehow tie it to content. For example, saying that "x is a pathological liar and we shouldn't give her lies any credence" will get you sanctioned. Do the extra work, provide a reliable source that says "x is a habitual liar whose statements are often false", and refrain from giving the impression that you are offering a personal opinion of the subject. If necessary, I am prepared to add a new AE restriction to that effect but I hope it won't come to that. -- NeilN talk to me 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we should create a heading or sub-heading devoted to Trump's promotion of various conspiracy theorists. These include Obama being a Muslim, Obama not being American, climate change being a hoax invented by the Chinese, vaccines causing autism, millions of illegal aliens voting with the help of the Democrats, Ted Cruz' dad being involved in the Kennedy assassination, and so on. What say you guys? Should there be a sub-heading devoted to the conspiracy theories of Trump? Steeletrap ( talk) 04:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing."
NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
Also, I am not aware that Mueller, OIG, or Nunes/Gowdy are looking into - alleged, whatever - Trump falsehoods, promotions of conspiracy theories, etc.In my book, "alleged, whatever" covers a lot of territory and so does "etc." Atsme 📞 📧 22:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey User:Objective3000, the comment says not to remove but there is not problem in doing so; Portal:Donald Trump/Intro works just well without that paragraph. Could you self revert as this is WP:UNDUE and nothing has been proven yet? L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.Further down MOS:LEADREL it says:
...although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.How about letting us know exactly what material is being referenced here? Atsme 📞 📧 16:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
<section end=Lead text />
tag, not the content preceding it.) ―
Mandruss
☎ 23:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.WP:BALANCE states:
"...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."And you might also check out Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#In-article conflict and #Reprints in that same essay. Atsme 📞 📧 07:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
the latter of which is pretty much all that is required for inclusion of material in an article.- WP:ONUS, part of WP:V, says otherwise. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
...material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage"....Pretty sure there was an "and" and two additional reasons in my post. O3000 ( talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.I'm still unsure what material is being discussed in this instance, but I do know that unsupported allegations don't get a free pass just because it's published on 20 different news sites. Our job is to use editorial judgment and discretion when considering biased opinions, unsubstantiated allegations and derogatory material about a BLP, which includes not saying it in WikiVoice, especially when the source is an opinion piece, commentary or analysis. Atsme 📞 📧 14:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"massive coverage" could be the result of reprints of a wire agency report….Well, it could be. But that has nothing to do with this case since it has been weekly, often daily, news for a year in innumerable sources. There have been 22 indictments. The subject of the article talks about it weekly. And we aren’t predicting, forecasting, or speculating about anything. O3000 ( talk) 14:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The sixth and last paragraph of the lead says:
"After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in an investigation into coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and related matters. Trump has repeatedly denied any such collusion."
This appears to WP:UNDUE weight to an incident that has yet to be proven. Yes, it has received massive media coverage, but most similar incidents are not even mentioned in the lead for other articles. For example, take Hillary Clinton, there is not even mention of her e-mail controversy, even if it received massive media coverage. So do you want the paragraph to be removed? L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 02:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and for context, I initially removed the content, but was reverted but Objective3000. As I am not allowed to reinstate previously challenged material, I am posting here. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 02:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
An example of how a lie by Trump shows up under another more credible person's name. [7] [8] [9] [10]
Does anybody here believe that Doc Ronny Jackson actually weighed Trump or administered the Montreal test? SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Maggie Haberman: "The dictation is abnormal, a doctor agreeing to it is abnormal and a doctor talking about it is abnormal." Twitter -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, my - here we go...
CNN The person familiar with the episode described altogether different circumstances, saying the handover had been completed peacefully, complicated only by Bornstein's fumbling with his photocopy machine to make copies of the records.
. Please, let the breaking news incubate 🐣.
Atsme
📞
📧 20:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
No IReliable Source has challenged that Jackson did the tests he said he did. Your skepticism is pure opinion and Original Research. As for Bornstein, he has done himself no favors in the credibility department by his changing stories. Anything he says should be attributed to him, and if others challenge what he says, that should also be included. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO - you seem to have confused Bornstein with some fantasy about Jackson. Yes, most folks do believe Jackson weighed Trump and did a cognitive test. Rumors of Trump having health issues in late 2017 is sort of like the fad of Hillary being unfit due to health in late 2016. (Silly bits about her needing pillows to sit upright, stumbling, an actual head knock exaggerated, a real collapse from hiding pneumonia.) Seems just clickbait and partisan pitching doubt or distractions, but hey it's what the niche markets like so Limbaugh sold it one year and Maddow sold it the other way the following year. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Forcing Bornstein to hand over original of medical records. CNN's source, "the person familiar with the episode", actually confirms the basics of Bornstein's description of the incident: Three people with a letter, i.e., not the usual medical records release form, showed up unannounced and asked for the records, and - when a flustered Bornstein was unable to photocopy them in the next 20 minutes - Schiller (who's what - 6 ft. 5 or 6? and at the time was representing the President of the United States and accompanied by Trump Organization VP and Chief Legal Officer Alan Garten and an unknown "large man") told him to hand over the originals. The originals are the physician's property and responsibility, and coercing him to hand them over now is dictator style and not the standard operating procedure of the White House Medical Unit, as Sanders claimed (although - these days - who knows). Seems relevant enough to go into either this article or the one on the Presidency of Donald Trump. Bornstein was wrong for signing the "healthiest president ever" letter, for telling the NYT which medications his patient took, and for not telling Schiller (why was he in NY in the first place?) to come back later or the next day for the copies. However, taking Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics out of the picture, what we're left with is abuse of power and the WH saying that there was "nothing out of the ordinary". Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
It may ultimately come to nothing...I oppose inclusion of this incident as breaking news (NOTNEWS). Odd that the doctor waited a year to disclose...but that seems to be a pattern with regards to Trump and people who appear to either hold a grudge after being replaced or may see financial opportunity or other form of personal gain by telling "their" he said/she said story, real or perceived. Atsme 📞 📧 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
oh for cats' sake, if this was any other president, any other politician, this - that the offices of a physician were raided to destroy "evidence" - would most certainly be included. But since it's Trump people bend over backwards to come up with ridiculous reasons like "NOTNEWS" to avoid including it. The only bias here is this inane pro-Trump cheer-leading and obfuscation. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
|
During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a glowing letter of health, which he later said Trump himself had dictated, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges.On the raid of Bornstein's office I don't know where that would fit in the article and I would hesitate to include it at all without seeing more significant coverage. ~ Awilley ( talk) 06:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump released a hyperbolic and superlative-laden letter signed by his personal physician, Dr. Harold Bornstein, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. In the face of skepticism from the press, Bornstein insisted that he was the author of the letter. In April, 2018, Bornstein stated to the press that Trump had dictated the letter.
~ Awilley ( talk) 16:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health—which he later said Trump himself had dictated—praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges.
Good 'un, but what purpose does it serve our readers? Is the purpose to compare what different doctors have said about Trump's health, or is the purpose to inform our readers that 2 different doctor exams have shown him to be in good heath? I say stay away from guessing at what Trump wanted people to think or what the discussion between Trump & his doctor was about. WP should not be analyzing the thoughts of our BLPs, and certainly not based on what Bornstein said. If consensus determines his health exams need to be included, let's throw-in his TV interview with Dr. Oz, the Bornstein results, and of course, White House Physician Ronny Jackson....or we could just add a sentence or two and say medical professionals who examined Trump determined that he was physically fit to serve as president...which is all that really matters anyway. Atsme 📞 📧 22:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
So, @ Awilley: it appears to me that you could put your latest version into the article and we can close this thread out. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter I think the Cincinnati Enquirer converted the occupancy rates they reported in their 2002 article (400 rented, 800 vacant) to percentages in their 2016 article which I removed because it was based largely on Trump's claims at Ohio campaign events and in "Art of the Deal", and also because, 14 years later, the Swifton Village maintenance man's memories had shifted a bit. I kept the wording "100%", though, because in 2002 the maintenance man also said, "In less than two years, there wasn't a vacancy." Maybe changing the wording to "boosted the occupancy rate to full" might be better? I wasn't too happy with "revitalizing" either because the sources don't actually mention more than a renovation but they probably spent big bucks on attracting tenants, as well, so I left it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:03, 20 May 2018 (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.
Apologies if this has been addressed already (the archive is gargantuan), but why is the Obama birth certificate controversy nestled under the "Racial views" section? What does the former president's birthplace have to do with race? Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 01:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"hinting at a "foreign" background for Obama"He does have a "foreign background". His father was Kenyan and Obama lived in Indonesia for many years.
"he knew full well he was tapping into the racist views of many Americans"And you know this because you can read his mind? Because you have a direct quote from a reliable, verifiable source where he said it? Of course, the answer to this is 'no' for both questions. Don't speculate and please be aware of BLP policy for article talk pages.
"Whether it showed that Trump himself is really racist on this front is unclear"It's unclear because you are making the scenario up.
"he was certainly using the Birther controversy as a racist tool."Bullshit. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"Do you really think nobody had racist views against Obama? Do you really think nobody had those views reinforced by the Birther controversy? Do you really believe Trump is so stupid he had no idea it would have that effect? Do you think it bothered him?"None of these things have anything to do with this article if you don't have a reliable source and/or direct quotes to back it all up. So please stop pretending it does (or thinking it does). If you want to believe all this, fine. But your personal feelings aren't reliable sources. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Here we go again. Please see Archive 78, Archive 77, Archive 73, Archive 21, etc. We have discussed this to death. The most recent discussion, now in Archive 78, was a formal discussion with a formal close. That close showed a consensus that material about birtherism is appropriate for the Donald Trump article and should remain here. The closer left it open whether to keep that material under “Racial views” or move it to “Political career and affiliations up to 2015”, with the default being to keep it in Racial views because it is there now. We can discuss, here, where in the article to put the material since there was no consensus at the last discussion. Whether birtherism has racial roots is not open to question, we have long since settled that. Birtherism emphasized Obama as the “Other” and challenged his right to be president, and that was very appealing to a lot of the Republican “base” for purely racial reasons. Whether Trump himself promoted birtherism out of personal racism, or simply because it was working for him in the polls and ratings, is undetermined. That was one of the reasons given for possibly moving the birtherism material to the campaign section. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
personal disparagement — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
According to
Andrevan, |