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 85 | ← | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | → | Archive 95 |
Why all photos of the article include Trump meanwhile you have that Comey picture by himself ?! Why don't you include MuEller, Hillary and even Stormy Daniels' pictures as well ?!
Thus, I recommend to take off the picture of that phoney Comey from this article. PLUS you should refer to the fact that Trump earns one dollar as a salary. Thanx GrecoArm ( talk) 05:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC) GrecoArm ( talk) 05:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced and not related to making content choices should be removed. Your description of Comey is contentious and unsourced - yet it is obviously related to your argument that the picture should be removed per WP:IAR. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them.
Litany of personal attacks and off-topic rants. User blocked a week. — JFG talk 04:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Scjessey: First of all, I did not mention the first name of "Comey", so why do you brag regarding James or Jim ?! Second, Mueller is the German Muller, bfff who cares?! ( Personal attack removed) I recommend that you immigrate to socialist Venezuela or Cuba then come to brag here regarding swimming in rubber ponds. I bet Mr. Trump caused you a severe derangement syndrome in the sad leftist Europe ! You hoped that Comey would do harm to Trump even though you are not even Americans, in that you consider that phoney as your hero ! How sad and pathetic ! GrecoArm ( talk) 07:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC) |
Uncollapsing the material that explains why my WP:BITE argument was mistaken. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 19:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hatting hardly seems appropriate. I don't believe that GrecoArm is a new editor. The editor's first edit ever was the creation of a new page, and not just any new page but a Category page. And many experienced editors don't know the difference between a hyphen and an n-dash (I didn't for almost 2 years), but this editor did after only a few short sessions of editing, including creating another two new category pages (does Wikipedia really need categories for Egyptian people of Montenegrin, Spanish, and Scottish descent, each containing exactly one page?). The editor's first on this Talk page looks like trolling to me, pushing several buttons that might get other editors riled. The last entry – oh my! Insulting – in this order – Mueller, Germans, the British, women (the four-letter t-word is just as insulting as the c-word nobody is supposed to use for the "First Daughter"), The Guardian ( "bfff"s all, according to GrecoArm, and probably not the most common definition but the opposite one), Jeremy Corbyn, the LGBTQ community, a license plate (?), another editor, and Europe. If this editor does not deserve to be blocked, I don't know who does. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC) |
Re-collapsing the remainder, per reason given by JFG; also some of this material sounds almost like it could arguably be black propaganda. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 19:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Another little snowflake spotted ! I demanded removal of a picture then you came to attack me with your British deranged "mate" Scjessey. I can tell how anything related to President Trump might drive you crazy to the limit that you lose it and start bashing people (you seem like angry oxen who get triggered when seeing the red MAGA hat ! sad !) I did not come here to fight anyone, I only notified that a picture of "ducks" should not be present in a "machine gun" article for instance. That British obtrusive "Scjessey" claimed that my demand is related to an agenda and attacked me personally, then when I hit back, he rolled to his corner crying and complaining ! We know that snowflakes, especially the "British Guardian fan boys", would always be sensitive when someone show them masculinity ! For the other special person User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, you seem that you were tracking my edits in order to show others that I do harm, hoping that Wikipedia should be a far-left propaganda machine which would "bang historical accuracy for the sake of inclusivity!" ! Far-left people want to control everything in our life, they do not want people to think, they only care if you support gay people and befriend with the peaceful religion adherers. In Britian, London mayor banned bikini pictures for the sake of advertising "Islamic relief donations", and you can tell how Jihadis are funded ! However, I do not like to talk about politics, but I had to simply reply to those little sensitive snowflakes, see this Aspersions ! GrecoArm ( talk) 19:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC) I tried to remove JFG’s hat but was unsuccessful so I’m quoting GrecoArm’s original uncensored edit here. Pinging editors @ Dervorguilla:, @ JFG:, @ Scjessey:, @ Mandruss: and any other editors who may be reading this section: Any suggestions on how to proceed from here? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 04:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
|
My apologies. I didn’t know that the editor had been blocked four hours earlier when I made my last entry above at 04:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)—didn’t look at the editor's Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:53, 11 July 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.
I am challenging this in the lead because it has received far less coverage in reliable sources compared to other issues like family separation, racial views, and other material that is currently omitted from the lead. Obviously, it is less impactful than Trump's immigration policies, and other material that should be in the lead.
Let's discuss.- Mr X 🖋 13:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@ MrX: The recognition of Jerusalem had been part of the lede section since 12 December 2017. [3] You removed this longstanding content on 22 June [4] and I restored it on 27 June. [5] Accordingly, the challenged edit was your 22 June removal, and the phrase should remain visible pending outcome of this discussion. — JFG talk 15:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Take this to AE/ARCA/ARBCOM O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When I asked about Trump's one-dollar salary, I had an answer from Scjessey that the discussion was already closed with excluding the fact. I went back to view the discussion and I quote "Scjessey" Archive 87#Salary: "Trump personally makes hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars per year by simply visiting his personal golf clubs and playing more golf than any president in US history, so it would be ridiculous to claim he only takes $1 in salary without this relevant context." ... Just WOW ! you have to simply admire the love and respect of this user to the President ! Another Trump-lover Space4Time3Continuum2x claims: "Not worth noting. Other independently wealthy presidents have also donated their salaries to charity. Also, there are very expensive, fully taxpayer-funded perks that Trump is accepting" ... I wonder what he would say if Obama had a one-dollar salary and donated it to charity ! Furthermore, this SPECIFICO claims here " Archive_85#Presidential salary" that people donate more than the "annual Presidential salary" ! So all the claims are about Golf trip expenses, "free transportation" (I bet Obama was using public buses during his presidency) and the little donation compared to "Thousands of Americans" ! I know that other presidents like Kennedy and Hoover donated their salaries, the problem here is not the salary and charity facts, but the main concern is the extreme bias and unfair processing of the situation, same as the pundits after the US-North Korea summit ! Imagine Maxine Waters and Al Green who were responsible about editing this article ! Therefore, I kindly ask for a vote among users here to decide whether the editors which are proved to be trolls and plain haters to be banned from editing here. GrecoArm ( talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC) GrecoArm ( talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Purplebackpack89: I totally agree, because any credit here is excluded already as I already explained, so let's ban the haters first ! GrecoArm ( talk) 22:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
|
I'm failing to see how this revert was in the best interest of the article and how it has done anything productive for it or the encyclopedia. The same goes for this reversion [6], this reversion [7], this reversion [8]. All three of which were done within about a seven hour period of time. That's over the limit and a vio of the policy for reverting at this article, right? Especially when one considers another reversion where the editor stated, "using my 1RR to challenge..." here [9]. If I'm seeing any of this wrong, I'd be happy to see evidence supporting I'm wrong in my perception. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks to me like a voiced 1RR revert at 15:35, 4 July 2018 and a sort of unstated revert substantial change at 03:50, 6 July 2018. More than 24 hours apart, so no violation of 1RR. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 05:00, 7 July 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.
An editor has restore this material that I removed a few days ago:
received a blessing from Greek Orthodox priest Emmanuel Lemelson.[1] [2] [3]
Sources
|
---|
|
Interestingly, this leaves out some information about the context and who Lemelson is, best summarized by the sources:
"Late last month, he donned his clerical collar to offer opening prayers and a personal blessing at a town-hall meeting here for Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate who has made raising taxes on hedge-fund managers a campaign centerpiece."
— [10]
"Rev. Emmanuel Lemelson is a clerical-collar-wearing hedge fund manager."
— [11]
I think this material is trivial and dated, and should be omitted. What do others think?- Mr X 🖋 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds rather minor for the main article. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
So much blessing and honor going around Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people. I believe you are serving as President today because of God’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people. Thank you again Mr. President for the honor of serving you and I wish you Godspeed in all that you put your hand to. Your Faithful Friend, Scott Pruitt."}}" |
Well, remember that missile test with North Korea? Looks like he’s gone crazy. He almost destroyed the world! Renacares ( talk) 09:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
MrX Re . Sheesh - getting attacked from all sides. The "quote mining" wasn’t cherry-picked so much as ironic in keeping with the tone of Geist’s NY Times article. Come on, "his finesse with the zoning code?" - not exactly complimentary. Geist’s entire article is about showyness and pretentiousness, with a big chunk devoted to the wheeling and dealing behind the building of Trump Tower. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The current sentence still contains the most important fact (Trump obtaining the rights to build), and Geist's article, despite its levity and the other stuff it mentions, is a good source for that. I don't even remember why I added the third quote – maybe to counteract the other two, thinking there would be opposition to their removal. Less may be more, and readers interested in details have the source to refer to. My suggestion is to just add Geist as the reference. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
(maybe not ... Markbassett ( talk) 04:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC))
The views ascribed to Trump by voters in the poll from a couple of weeks ago should be represented in the present tense. I hope the reason is obvious.- Mr X 🖋 13:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you think is the main motive behind President Trump's immigration policies: a sincere interest in controlling our borders, or racist beliefs?Regrettably, they did not provide a "both" choice. — JFG talk 14:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The question fo whether to mention securing borders is solved by just follow the cites -- say what the question actually was, and saywh percentage chose racism. Saying the non-racism part alone would be outside the section, but to not say bothmisportrays the question. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
But on the topic of things not belonging here, what is "said he "has emboldened people who hold racist beliefs" doing here -- it;s not about him having racist views or not or what they are, it's saying folks state an effect rather than any cause or his own beliefs. Seems even more 'out' than presenting the full question about him motivated more by concern for borders or by racism. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Scjessey: [12] By your reasoning, almost all of the "Foreign policy" section could be removed as being in the "wrong article". Is that what you are aiming at, or did you have a specific reason to oppose mentioning the closure of the Seattle consulate? This sort of thing does not happen every day, and it shores up the later sentence's assertion that Russia–U.S. relations are at a low point. — JFG talk 13:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Can someone add info about the Summit in Helsinki on July 16th? Merimiesei ( talk) 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:OVERCITE I do not believe that we need more than one or two sources to support each statement in the article. The "Racial views" section had many instances including three or more sources, so I trimmed each group of citations to one or two. [13] MrX reverted, [14] stating a fear that some editors may later remove material as not being verified in sources. I was very careful to keep the highest-quality sources and to make sure they fully support the article statements, so that I consider this fear unfounded. If other editors remove article text later, that will be easy to challenge at that time. Therefore I am requesting to restore my version. — JFG talk 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
"Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated."stated in Wikipedia's voice is very controversial. Citing four excellent sources shows that we did put some effort into determining if that view is widely-held and it gives readers easy access to resources for their further research. On the other hand, there is little to no upside to removing sources. Similarly, you removed http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-surrogates-spin-birther-narrative/, a very important source for one of the most contentious conspiracy theories promoted by Trump and his courtiers. Surprisingly, you even removed two excellent sources for the sentence
"His remarks were condemned as racist worldwide, as well as by many members of Congress."which is another fact stated in Wikipedia's voice and requiring strong evidence. - Mr X 🖋 14:04, 5 July 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.
I've made this diff in a sandbox to reduce the material on pre-July 2016 campaign material.
Things that may be controversial:
Trump's presidential ambitions were generally not taken seriously at the time.(sourced to [17])
Less controversially:
Comments/thoughts? I'll plan to make similar changes to the live article tomorrow, based on discussion here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
credited for helping kick-start his political career within the Republican Party.His political ambitions were not taken seriously before that (not that they are taken seriously now, even at the Resolute Desk). Therefore, OK for the citation saying he was not taken seriously. OK to remove lots of speculation and stale polls for 2011–2013. OK to reorder chronologically the 2015 piece where he decides to leave The Apprentice while planning his presidential run. We should keep
Trump said his wealth would make him immune to pressure from campaign donors., because that was a strong part of his message and popular appeal. OK for trimming the 2016 primary campaign; the general election campaign could be trimmed as well. — JFG talk 19:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump said his wealth would make him immune to pressure from campaign donors.should be kept.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I won't touch the content on Trump's wealth impacting his campaign, and I'll try to leave some material about 2011 CPAC in this time. I'll do this in two diffs; one with the content changes, and a follow-up one with the header changes (in case somebody wants to revert that separately). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:24, 12 July 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.
There is a dispute about how current consensus #29 should be worded.
JFG prefers:I prefer:"29. Mention the Trump administration family separation policy in the article in some form. ( link)"
"29. Consensus to include in some form:
"In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law."( link)"
I think it's important to include what the vast majority of editors actually supported, rather than a vague "some form" that a tiny minority supported.
Let's see if we can come up with something we call all live with that accurately reflects the outcome of the RfC.- Mr X 🖋 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This close doesn't lock down an exact wording of what the article should say, and that will need to be modified anyway as things develop further.There is no support for a version of the prose or another; the discussion about exact proposed wordings fizzled out. In such a case, it's best for everybody to let the article evolve, while noting that the RfC does mandate mentioning this issue "in some form" (closer's wording). Indeed, the text has already evolved with no disputes, which is nice to see. — JFG talk 15:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
29. Consensus to include the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. ( link)
Mention the Trump administration family separation policy in the article.— JFG talk 18:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Include a description of the Trump administration family separation policy.This indicates that we must give this policy some substantive text, not just a passing mention, which I think addresses your concern. Specifying "in the article" looks redundant – where else? — JFG talk 18:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Consensus to include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article.? That should satisfy all the angels dancing on all the pin heads.- Mr X 🖋 20:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll go with the well parsed-sentence above, "Consensus to include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article." The actual text proposed at the beginning of this discussion is not as good as the subsection currently in the article. BTW what is in the article needs to be kept current; it is already out of date. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 20:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
MrX said: The link will make it clear enough what was supported.
That sounds to me like he's saying there is a consensus for exact wording evident in the discussion. I don't see said consensus, but if one exists it should be closed that way and the exact wording should be stated in the list. To do otherwise is to beg for avoidable conflict later. Apologies if I misinterpret MrX's comment. ―
Mandruss
☎ 01:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I support the second as both the better version and more in line with the RFC. Casprings ( talk) 10:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit kafkaian, but here we are, debating whether we have consensus on how to document an RfC-adjudicated consensus. There is only limited support for the long form that includes an exact text, whereas the situation has evolved and is still evolving since the RfC was closed, so that setting a text in stone looks counter-productive. The amended short-form proposal that seems to have enough support would be:
29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. ( link)
@ Awilley, Casprings, Mandruss, MelanieN alt, MrX, Neutrality, Scjessey, and SPECIFICO: Who agrees? Who disagrees? Who suggests something else? — JFG talk 01:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the "Immigration" section. ( link)
@ Galobtter: You added the sentence on the international version. I looked for a source on Burnett and Trump co-producing and found info on the BBC producers and one BBC News article on Trump producing which I added to the paragraph. Do you have any other references? The UK version seems to be the only successful and long-running international version. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
No need to delve on other international versions hereto the Talk page. Wasn’t gonna delve but maybe dwell a little or at least mention in passing. Most of the international versions seem to have bombed or died quietly and unlamented but it looks like a franchise to me. I haven’t found any sources on whether Trump benefited financially or not from all of them (he did and still does in the UK, according to the BBC), but he figured prominently in their promotions ("adapted from US version starring multimillionaire"). The borders between between what this article is lumping under branding and licensing, side ventures, media career, and even real estate, are fluid and pretty arbitrary because he’s always been promoting himself. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
"or should I say imperiously"No, you should not. Please keep the civility restrictions for this page per WP:ARBAPDS in mind when communicating with other editors. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter – Sorry, my mistake - I assumed because you added "franchise" to the heading.
JFG – Seems that you were the culprit and that this edit had slipped your mind when you made this one. On November 22, 2016, you added the sentence about Trump and Burnett co-producing the international versions without citing any references, and on June 27, 2018, you removed the sentence with the edit summary that [Trump was] "Not involved in international versions (unless somebody finds a source)". That said, here comes my own mea culpa: I apparently blacked out reading my BBC source because I didn't notice that it only mentions the US versions. I've therefore deleted the sentence, the unrelated ref, and the UK series from the "Main" cross-ref. An unexpected side-effect of my latest round of research: Discovering Trump’s regular Monday appearances as a guest commentator on Fox & Friends, beginning in 2011. And - as an afterthought to the recently closed religion RfC - another incidence of Trump being "really honored" TIME. Starting to think that Trump's definition of "honored" is different from that of English language dictionaries. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yaa240 ( talk) 05:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
dt is born december 2 1645
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.
Our third paragraph of the lede, the one about his business activities, currently ends with the sentence According to March 2018 estimates by Forbes, he is the world's 766th richest person, with a net worth of US$3.1 billion.
Have we ever discussed this? I agree that we need to convey the extent of his wealth in some way in the lede, and we do have a significant section in the article on the subject. But to list a constantly-shifting and rather arbitrary ranking seems inappropriate for the lede. Can anyone think of a better way to convey his wealth - one that is more general, more generic, and will not need to be monitored and updated all the time? I don't really have a suggestion in mind, I am just looking for discussion and ideas. --
MelanieN alt (
talk) 16:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
According to Forbes 2018 estimates, he has a net worth of US$3.1 billion.This version includes a wikilink to Forbes so interested readers can easily just click that. It does not specify the month March which is just the publication date and may lag from the research date, even though I admit that in the case of Trump this effect will probably be negligible. My proposal removes the ranking as being 766th richest person is hardly the most notable thing in the world for a man of this much notability. Furthermore it shortens the sentence in an already long lead. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I support removing "the world's 766th richest person" from the lead, and have no opinion on any other changes. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion here that we remove "he is the xxxth richest person in the world". Several people have suggested removing it; does anyone want to keep it? If no one objects in next 24 hours or so we could probably go ahead and delete that - while continuing to discuss how to get some idea of his wealth across. Good suggestions so far, keep 'em coming. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 20:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. I am seeing quite a bit of support for listing the Forbes annual number, as per Emir and JFG and MrX with slightly different versions; how do people feel about that general concept? -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 20:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
According to Forbes, he is a billionaire.
That's all we need. The citation can refer to the March 2018 article where specifics are given that can verify the term. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
As noted by MelanieN alt, we seem to have consensus to remove the "world's 766th richest" ranking. For the mention of his wealth, we have a few options on the table:
He is a billionaire.
His net worth is roughly $3 billion.
Forbes estimates his net worth to $3.1 billion.
Financial publications have estimated his net worth to roughly $3 billion.
Financial publications have estimated his net worth to roughly $3 billion, while he claims "more than $10 billion" and some commentators place it as low as $250 million.
Since he is a successful businessman, he has a net worth of several billion dollars and provides employment opportunities for over 20,000 people.-- MelanieN alt ( talk) 17:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
According to March 2018 estimates by Forbes, he is the world's 766th richest person, with a net worth of US$3.1 billion.-- MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Exact phrasing can change, but these are the main choices as regards the level of detail we want to cover. All of this is corroborated in the article's "Wealth" section. What do y'all think is the most appropriate level of detail for the lede? — JFG talk 04:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Bold denotes primary Support or Oppose.
Support | Oppose | Weighted Supports minus Opposes Primary Support = 1 Secondary Support = 0.5 Oppose = 1 | |
---|---|---|---|
A | MONGO MrX O3000 Scjessey Space4Time3Continuum2x |
JFG SPECIFICO MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
1 = (5x1)+(0x0.5) − (4x1) |
B | MONGO Scjessey MrX power~enwiki |
JFG O3000 SPECIFICO |
0 = (2x1)+(2x0.5) − (3x1) |
C | MONGO MrX MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
JFG SPECIFICO |
0.5 = (1x1)+(3x0.5) − (2x1) |
D | JFG MONGO power~enwiki עם ישראל חי SPECIFICO MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
MrX | 5.5 = (6x1)+(1x0.5) − (1x1) |
E | JFG MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
MrX | 2 = (3x1)+(0x0.5) − (1x1) |
F | Emir of Wikipedia | JFG MrX power~enwiki MelanieN alt |
−3.5 = (0x1)+(1x0.5) − (4x1) |
G | MONGO | Scjessey power~enwiki MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
−3.5 = (0x1)+(1x0.5) − (4x1) |
H | Markbassett | MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
−1 = (1x1)+(0x0.5) − (2x1) |
The second paragraph of the lead needs a make over. It's far too focused on Trump's persona during the campaign, and it notably omits the fact that he continues to emit falsehoods, and that a great many of his actions and comments are controversial. There also needs be some mention of the public perception of his racial views, along the lines of the first sentence of the 'Racial views' section. Any thoughts on how we can update this paragraph? - Mr X 🖋 16:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Do not include allegations of racism in the lead.) Since the relevant discussion in February, I don't see much new information about such views or criticism thereof that would change the consensus. But obviously, you can try. — JFG talk 17:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
many of his public statements were controversial or falseand
His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.suffice? -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It's simply not credible on the one hand for us to decry RECENTISM and then on the other hand to call "consensus" on stale and outdated content that needs to be recast to reflect our subsequent and current knowledge and available sources. Let's get to the substance here and not "head 'em off at the pass". The current content is stale. BTW, to repeat myself, I'd be fine blowing up the "consensus list" if it's going to be a crutch or barrier that prevents article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Commentators have described Trump's political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Many of his public statements have been false or controversial, and many have been perceived as racially motivated.
Since his childhood, he has been described as brash and bombastic—personal characteristics that helped further his business and political goals.Trump was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, become the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.
Putting this draft out there as a thought starter to get the ball rolling.- Mr X 🖋 20:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no reason to shut down this discussion because the first working draft was not perfect. WP is not the platform for hagiography of public figures. Moreover, even Americans who support Trump for his role in promoting a certain political agenda routinely discuss his many deviations from established standards and expectations. I think the deleted wording about his public manner can be restored later in some form, as it relates to article content. Meanwhile I suggest removing the "or controversial, and many have been perceived as racially motivated" from its current location, since the false statements are not confined to race-related matters. I would locate it instead at the end to read "His election and policies have been controversial, and many have been perceived them to be racially motivated." I think we should offer suggestions to OP and let him be the one to edit the proposed text so that we do not end up with half a dozen alternative versions, since we know from past discussions that these are difficult to resolve. SPECIFICO talk 11:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)T
In 2008, he was nominated for president a year after his campaign began and after a close primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. He was elected over Republican John McCain and was inaugurated on January 20, 2009.For Bill Clinton:
Clinton was elected president in 1992, defeating incumbent Republican opponent George H. W. Bush. At age 46, he became the third-youngest president and the first from the Baby Boomer generation.For George H. W. Bush:
In 1988, Bush ran a successful campaign to succeed Reagan as President, defeating Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
All of these may be somewhat controversial:
I also have thoughts about the "White supremacist support" section that will take longer to write up (and I will do so in a separate discussion); the "Sexual misconduct allegations" may get moved around but I don't plan to suggest significant changes to it. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
74.140.48.236 ( talk) 15:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
hi! please, add to the "donald trump" page under books: "Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump." the author is harry hurt III & published in 1993 (reprinted in 2016).
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-me-feel-violated-during-sex https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tycoon-Lives-Donald-Trump/dp/1626543941
thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.48.236 ( talk) 15:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction, the sentence "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false" shows very clear political bias on the part of the editor: I recommend taking out the "or false" part as it is clearly a case of the writer's bias. When I read a Wikipedia article I expect to read facts, not someone's overt bias against a prominent figure.
Quite frankly, as a reader I am offended reading statements like this: it is as if the writer is trying to tell me how to think instead of presenting unbiased information to me. It also makes me question the overall truth value and validity of this page. 96.236.208.42 ( talk) 06:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I apologize if you have created some structure I missed. I'm not a regular here, and have no idea how I should have known that my comment belonged elsewhere. Nor do I yet see how I should have known. It is standard in many places to close a discussion which is in the wrong place. Why not here? How are editors who rarely visit here supposed to know about unwritten rules?
I've now read the link you provided and suggest it was incompetently constructed. If I were presented with a choice between (A) "many of his public statements were controversial or false" or (B) "many of his public statements were false" I'd probably go with (A) as well. Is it true that "many of his public statements were controversial or false"? Of course. So why on earth am I objecting (I hope you are asking)? Because the question asked omits that the entire sentence is:
His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false.
That construction leaves the impression that the post semi-colon points relate to the pre-semi-colon assertion. I am in full agreement that controversial statements led to extensive and net positive free media coverage, but I don't think one can say the same about false statements. The two concepts deserve discussion, but they should be separated. I see that one contributor to the discussion (O3000 ) made that point, but I think it got lost, becuase the beginning of the sentence was not mentioned.
That attempt to identify consensus should be thrown out because it was ill-formed. Let's start over with the full sentence. If a consensus wants to supported incompetent English phrasing, Ill not fight the consensus, but let's at least have the discussion. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:30, 15 July 2018 (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 85 | ← | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | → | Archive 95 |
Why all photos of the article include Trump meanwhile you have that Comey picture by himself ?! Why don't you include MuEller, Hillary and even Stormy Daniels' pictures as well ?!
Thus, I recommend to take off the picture of that phoney Comey from this article. PLUS you should refer to the fact that Trump earns one dollar as a salary. Thanx GrecoArm ( talk) 05:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC) GrecoArm ( talk) 05:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced and not related to making content choices should be removed. Your description of Comey is contentious and unsourced - yet it is obviously related to your argument that the picture should be removed per WP:IAR. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them.
Litany of personal attacks and off-topic rants. User blocked a week. — JFG talk 04:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Scjessey: First of all, I did not mention the first name of "Comey", so why do you brag regarding James or Jim ?! Second, Mueller is the German Muller, bfff who cares?! ( Personal attack removed) I recommend that you immigrate to socialist Venezuela or Cuba then come to brag here regarding swimming in rubber ponds. I bet Mr. Trump caused you a severe derangement syndrome in the sad leftist Europe ! You hoped that Comey would do harm to Trump even though you are not even Americans, in that you consider that phoney as your hero ! How sad and pathetic ! GrecoArm ( talk) 07:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC) |
Uncollapsing the material that explains why my WP:BITE argument was mistaken. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 19:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hatting hardly seems appropriate. I don't believe that GrecoArm is a new editor. The editor's first edit ever was the creation of a new page, and not just any new page but a Category page. And many experienced editors don't know the difference between a hyphen and an n-dash (I didn't for almost 2 years), but this editor did after only a few short sessions of editing, including creating another two new category pages (does Wikipedia really need categories for Egyptian people of Montenegrin, Spanish, and Scottish descent, each containing exactly one page?). The editor's first on this Talk page looks like trolling to me, pushing several buttons that might get other editors riled. The last entry – oh my! Insulting – in this order – Mueller, Germans, the British, women (the four-letter t-word is just as insulting as the c-word nobody is supposed to use for the "First Daughter"), The Guardian ( "bfff"s all, according to GrecoArm, and probably not the most common definition but the opposite one), Jeremy Corbyn, the LGBTQ community, a license plate (?), another editor, and Europe. If this editor does not deserve to be blocked, I don't know who does. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC) |
Re-collapsing the remainder, per reason given by JFG; also some of this material sounds almost like it could arguably be black propaganda. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 19:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Another little snowflake spotted ! I demanded removal of a picture then you came to attack me with your British deranged "mate" Scjessey. I can tell how anything related to President Trump might drive you crazy to the limit that you lose it and start bashing people (you seem like angry oxen who get triggered when seeing the red MAGA hat ! sad !) I did not come here to fight anyone, I only notified that a picture of "ducks" should not be present in a "machine gun" article for instance. That British obtrusive "Scjessey" claimed that my demand is related to an agenda and attacked me personally, then when I hit back, he rolled to his corner crying and complaining ! We know that snowflakes, especially the "British Guardian fan boys", would always be sensitive when someone show them masculinity ! For the other special person User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, you seem that you were tracking my edits in order to show others that I do harm, hoping that Wikipedia should be a far-left propaganda machine which would "bang historical accuracy for the sake of inclusivity!" ! Far-left people want to control everything in our life, they do not want people to think, they only care if you support gay people and befriend with the peaceful religion adherers. In Britian, London mayor banned bikini pictures for the sake of advertising "Islamic relief donations", and you can tell how Jihadis are funded ! However, I do not like to talk about politics, but I had to simply reply to those little sensitive snowflakes, see this Aspersions ! GrecoArm ( talk) 19:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC) I tried to remove JFG’s hat but was unsuccessful so I’m quoting GrecoArm’s original uncensored edit here. Pinging editors @ Dervorguilla:, @ JFG:, @ Scjessey:, @ Mandruss: and any other editors who may be reading this section: Any suggestions on how to proceed from here? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 04:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
|
My apologies. I didn’t know that the editor had been blocked four hours earlier when I made my last entry above at 04:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)—didn’t look at the editor's Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:53, 11 July 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.
I am challenging this in the lead because it has received far less coverage in reliable sources compared to other issues like family separation, racial views, and other material that is currently omitted from the lead. Obviously, it is less impactful than Trump's immigration policies, and other material that should be in the lead.
Let's discuss.- Mr X 🖋 13:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@ MrX: The recognition of Jerusalem had been part of the lede section since 12 December 2017. [3] You removed this longstanding content on 22 June [4] and I restored it on 27 June. [5] Accordingly, the challenged edit was your 22 June removal, and the phrase should remain visible pending outcome of this discussion. — JFG talk 15:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Take this to AE/ARCA/ARBCOM O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When I asked about Trump's one-dollar salary, I had an answer from Scjessey that the discussion was already closed with excluding the fact. I went back to view the discussion and I quote "Scjessey" Archive 87#Salary: "Trump personally makes hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars per year by simply visiting his personal golf clubs and playing more golf than any president in US history, so it would be ridiculous to claim he only takes $1 in salary without this relevant context." ... Just WOW ! you have to simply admire the love and respect of this user to the President ! Another Trump-lover Space4Time3Continuum2x claims: "Not worth noting. Other independently wealthy presidents have also donated their salaries to charity. Also, there are very expensive, fully taxpayer-funded perks that Trump is accepting" ... I wonder what he would say if Obama had a one-dollar salary and donated it to charity ! Furthermore, this SPECIFICO claims here " Archive_85#Presidential salary" that people donate more than the "annual Presidential salary" ! So all the claims are about Golf trip expenses, "free transportation" (I bet Obama was using public buses during his presidency) and the little donation compared to "Thousands of Americans" ! I know that other presidents like Kennedy and Hoover donated their salaries, the problem here is not the salary and charity facts, but the main concern is the extreme bias and unfair processing of the situation, same as the pundits after the US-North Korea summit ! Imagine Maxine Waters and Al Green who were responsible about editing this article ! Therefore, I kindly ask for a vote among users here to decide whether the editors which are proved to be trolls and plain haters to be banned from editing here. GrecoArm ( talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC) GrecoArm ( talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Purplebackpack89: I totally agree, because any credit here is excluded already as I already explained, so let's ban the haters first ! GrecoArm ( talk) 22:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
|
I'm failing to see how this revert was in the best interest of the article and how it has done anything productive for it or the encyclopedia. The same goes for this reversion [6], this reversion [7], this reversion [8]. All three of which were done within about a seven hour period of time. That's over the limit and a vio of the policy for reverting at this article, right? Especially when one considers another reversion where the editor stated, "using my 1RR to challenge..." here [9]. If I'm seeing any of this wrong, I'd be happy to see evidence supporting I'm wrong in my perception. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks to me like a voiced 1RR revert at 15:35, 4 July 2018 and a sort of unstated revert substantial change at 03:50, 6 July 2018. More than 24 hours apart, so no violation of 1RR. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 05:00, 7 July 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.
An editor has restore this material that I removed a few days ago:
received a blessing from Greek Orthodox priest Emmanuel Lemelson.[1] [2] [3]
Sources
|
---|
|
Interestingly, this leaves out some information about the context and who Lemelson is, best summarized by the sources:
"Late last month, he donned his clerical collar to offer opening prayers and a personal blessing at a town-hall meeting here for Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate who has made raising taxes on hedge-fund managers a campaign centerpiece."
— [10]
"Rev. Emmanuel Lemelson is a clerical-collar-wearing hedge fund manager."
— [11]
I think this material is trivial and dated, and should be omitted. What do others think?- Mr X 🖋 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds rather minor for the main article. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
So much blessing and honor going around Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people. I believe you are serving as President today because of God’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people. Thank you again Mr. President for the honor of serving you and I wish you Godspeed in all that you put your hand to. Your Faithful Friend, Scott Pruitt."}}" |
Well, remember that missile test with North Korea? Looks like he’s gone crazy. He almost destroyed the world! Renacares ( talk) 09:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
MrX Re . Sheesh - getting attacked from all sides. The "quote mining" wasn’t cherry-picked so much as ironic in keeping with the tone of Geist’s NY Times article. Come on, "his finesse with the zoning code?" - not exactly complimentary. Geist’s entire article is about showyness and pretentiousness, with a big chunk devoted to the wheeling and dealing behind the building of Trump Tower. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The current sentence still contains the most important fact (Trump obtaining the rights to build), and Geist's article, despite its levity and the other stuff it mentions, is a good source for that. I don't even remember why I added the third quote – maybe to counteract the other two, thinking there would be opposition to their removal. Less may be more, and readers interested in details have the source to refer to. My suggestion is to just add Geist as the reference. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
(maybe not ... Markbassett ( talk) 04:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC))
The views ascribed to Trump by voters in the poll from a couple of weeks ago should be represented in the present tense. I hope the reason is obvious.- Mr X 🖋 13:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you think is the main motive behind President Trump's immigration policies: a sincere interest in controlling our borders, or racist beliefs?Regrettably, they did not provide a "both" choice. — JFG talk 14:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The question fo whether to mention securing borders is solved by just follow the cites -- say what the question actually was, and saywh percentage chose racism. Saying the non-racism part alone would be outside the section, but to not say bothmisportrays the question. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
But on the topic of things not belonging here, what is "said he "has emboldened people who hold racist beliefs" doing here -- it;s not about him having racist views or not or what they are, it's saying folks state an effect rather than any cause or his own beliefs. Seems even more 'out' than presenting the full question about him motivated more by concern for borders or by racism. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Scjessey: [12] By your reasoning, almost all of the "Foreign policy" section could be removed as being in the "wrong article". Is that what you are aiming at, or did you have a specific reason to oppose mentioning the closure of the Seattle consulate? This sort of thing does not happen every day, and it shores up the later sentence's assertion that Russia–U.S. relations are at a low point. — JFG talk 13:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Can someone add info about the Summit in Helsinki on July 16th? Merimiesei ( talk) 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:OVERCITE I do not believe that we need more than one or two sources to support each statement in the article. The "Racial views" section had many instances including three or more sources, so I trimmed each group of citations to one or two. [13] MrX reverted, [14] stating a fear that some editors may later remove material as not being verified in sources. I was very careful to keep the highest-quality sources and to make sure they fully support the article statements, so that I consider this fear unfounded. If other editors remove article text later, that will be easy to challenge at that time. Therefore I am requesting to restore my version. — JFG talk 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
"Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated."stated in Wikipedia's voice is very controversial. Citing four excellent sources shows that we did put some effort into determining if that view is widely-held and it gives readers easy access to resources for their further research. On the other hand, there is little to no upside to removing sources. Similarly, you removed http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-surrogates-spin-birther-narrative/, a very important source for one of the most contentious conspiracy theories promoted by Trump and his courtiers. Surprisingly, you even removed two excellent sources for the sentence
"His remarks were condemned as racist worldwide, as well as by many members of Congress."which is another fact stated in Wikipedia's voice and requiring strong evidence. - Mr X 🖋 14:04, 5 July 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.
I've made this diff in a sandbox to reduce the material on pre-July 2016 campaign material.
Things that may be controversial:
Trump's presidential ambitions were generally not taken seriously at the time.(sourced to [17])
Less controversially:
Comments/thoughts? I'll plan to make similar changes to the live article tomorrow, based on discussion here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
credited for helping kick-start his political career within the Republican Party.His political ambitions were not taken seriously before that (not that they are taken seriously now, even at the Resolute Desk). Therefore, OK for the citation saying he was not taken seriously. OK to remove lots of speculation and stale polls for 2011–2013. OK to reorder chronologically the 2015 piece where he decides to leave The Apprentice while planning his presidential run. We should keep
Trump said his wealth would make him immune to pressure from campaign donors., because that was a strong part of his message and popular appeal. OK for trimming the 2016 primary campaign; the general election campaign could be trimmed as well. — JFG talk 19:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump said his wealth would make him immune to pressure from campaign donors.should be kept.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I won't touch the content on Trump's wealth impacting his campaign, and I'll try to leave some material about 2011 CPAC in this time. I'll do this in two diffs; one with the content changes, and a follow-up one with the header changes (in case somebody wants to revert that separately). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:24, 12 July 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.
There is a dispute about how current consensus #29 should be worded.
JFG prefers:I prefer:"29. Mention the Trump administration family separation policy in the article in some form. ( link)"
"29. Consensus to include in some form:
"In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law."( link)"
I think it's important to include what the vast majority of editors actually supported, rather than a vague "some form" that a tiny minority supported.
Let's see if we can come up with something we call all live with that accurately reflects the outcome of the RfC.- Mr X 🖋 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This close doesn't lock down an exact wording of what the article should say, and that will need to be modified anyway as things develop further.There is no support for a version of the prose or another; the discussion about exact proposed wordings fizzled out. In such a case, it's best for everybody to let the article evolve, while noting that the RfC does mandate mentioning this issue "in some form" (closer's wording). Indeed, the text has already evolved with no disputes, which is nice to see. — JFG talk 15:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
29. Consensus to include the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. ( link)
Mention the Trump administration family separation policy in the article.— JFG talk 18:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Include a description of the Trump administration family separation policy.This indicates that we must give this policy some substantive text, not just a passing mention, which I think addresses your concern. Specifying "in the article" looks redundant – where else? — JFG talk 18:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Consensus to include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article.? That should satisfy all the angels dancing on all the pin heads.- Mr X 🖋 20:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll go with the well parsed-sentence above, "Consensus to include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article." The actual text proposed at the beginning of this discussion is not as good as the subsection currently in the article. BTW what is in the article needs to be kept current; it is already out of date. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 20:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
MrX said: The link will make it clear enough what was supported.
That sounds to me like he's saying there is a consensus for exact wording evident in the discussion. I don't see said consensus, but if one exists it should be closed that way and the exact wording should be stated in the list. To do otherwise is to beg for avoidable conflict later. Apologies if I misinterpret MrX's comment. ―
Mandruss
☎ 01:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I support the second as both the better version and more in line with the RFC. Casprings ( talk) 10:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit kafkaian, but here we are, debating whether we have consensus on how to document an RfC-adjudicated consensus. There is only limited support for the long form that includes an exact text, whereas the situation has evolved and is still evolving since the RfC was closed, so that setting a text in stone looks counter-productive. The amended short-form proposal that seems to have enough support would be:
29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. ( link)
@ Awilley, Casprings, Mandruss, MelanieN alt, MrX, Neutrality, Scjessey, and SPECIFICO: Who agrees? Who disagrees? Who suggests something else? — JFG talk 01:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the "Immigration" section. ( link)
@ Galobtter: You added the sentence on the international version. I looked for a source on Burnett and Trump co-producing and found info on the BBC producers and one BBC News article on Trump producing which I added to the paragraph. Do you have any other references? The UK version seems to be the only successful and long-running international version. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
No need to delve on other international versions hereto the Talk page. Wasn’t gonna delve but maybe dwell a little or at least mention in passing. Most of the international versions seem to have bombed or died quietly and unlamented but it looks like a franchise to me. I haven’t found any sources on whether Trump benefited financially or not from all of them (he did and still does in the UK, according to the BBC), but he figured prominently in their promotions ("adapted from US version starring multimillionaire"). The borders between between what this article is lumping under branding and licensing, side ventures, media career, and even real estate, are fluid and pretty arbitrary because he’s always been promoting himself. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
"or should I say imperiously"No, you should not. Please keep the civility restrictions for this page per WP:ARBAPDS in mind when communicating with other editors. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter – Sorry, my mistake - I assumed because you added "franchise" to the heading.
JFG – Seems that you were the culprit and that this edit had slipped your mind when you made this one. On November 22, 2016, you added the sentence about Trump and Burnett co-producing the international versions without citing any references, and on June 27, 2018, you removed the sentence with the edit summary that [Trump was] "Not involved in international versions (unless somebody finds a source)". That said, here comes my own mea culpa: I apparently blacked out reading my BBC source because I didn't notice that it only mentions the US versions. I've therefore deleted the sentence, the unrelated ref, and the UK series from the "Main" cross-ref. An unexpected side-effect of my latest round of research: Discovering Trump’s regular Monday appearances as a guest commentator on Fox & Friends, beginning in 2011. And - as an afterthought to the recently closed religion RfC - another incidence of Trump being "really honored" TIME. Starting to think that Trump's definition of "honored" is different from that of English language dictionaries. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yaa240 ( talk) 05:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
dt is born december 2 1645
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.
Our third paragraph of the lede, the one about his business activities, currently ends with the sentence According to March 2018 estimates by Forbes, he is the world's 766th richest person, with a net worth of US$3.1 billion.
Have we ever discussed this? I agree that we need to convey the extent of his wealth in some way in the lede, and we do have a significant section in the article on the subject. But to list a constantly-shifting and rather arbitrary ranking seems inappropriate for the lede. Can anyone think of a better way to convey his wealth - one that is more general, more generic, and will not need to be monitored and updated all the time? I don't really have a suggestion in mind, I am just looking for discussion and ideas. --
MelanieN alt (
talk) 16:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
According to Forbes 2018 estimates, he has a net worth of US$3.1 billion.This version includes a wikilink to Forbes so interested readers can easily just click that. It does not specify the month March which is just the publication date and may lag from the research date, even though I admit that in the case of Trump this effect will probably be negligible. My proposal removes the ranking as being 766th richest person is hardly the most notable thing in the world for a man of this much notability. Furthermore it shortens the sentence in an already long lead. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I support removing "the world's 766th richest person" from the lead, and have no opinion on any other changes. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion here that we remove "he is the xxxth richest person in the world". Several people have suggested removing it; does anyone want to keep it? If no one objects in next 24 hours or so we could probably go ahead and delete that - while continuing to discuss how to get some idea of his wealth across. Good suggestions so far, keep 'em coming. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 20:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. I am seeing quite a bit of support for listing the Forbes annual number, as per Emir and JFG and MrX with slightly different versions; how do people feel about that general concept? -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 20:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
According to Forbes, he is a billionaire.
That's all we need. The citation can refer to the March 2018 article where specifics are given that can verify the term. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
As noted by MelanieN alt, we seem to have consensus to remove the "world's 766th richest" ranking. For the mention of his wealth, we have a few options on the table:
He is a billionaire.
His net worth is roughly $3 billion.
Forbes estimates his net worth to $3.1 billion.
Financial publications have estimated his net worth to roughly $3 billion.
Financial publications have estimated his net worth to roughly $3 billion, while he claims "more than $10 billion" and some commentators place it as low as $250 million.
Since he is a successful businessman, he has a net worth of several billion dollars and provides employment opportunities for over 20,000 people.-- MelanieN alt ( talk) 17:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
According to March 2018 estimates by Forbes, he is the world's 766th richest person, with a net worth of US$3.1 billion.-- MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Exact phrasing can change, but these are the main choices as regards the level of detail we want to cover. All of this is corroborated in the article's "Wealth" section. What do y'all think is the most appropriate level of detail for the lede? — JFG talk 04:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Bold denotes primary Support or Oppose.
Support | Oppose | Weighted Supports minus Opposes Primary Support = 1 Secondary Support = 0.5 Oppose = 1 | |
---|---|---|---|
A | MONGO MrX O3000 Scjessey Space4Time3Continuum2x |
JFG SPECIFICO MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
1 = (5x1)+(0x0.5) − (4x1) |
B | MONGO Scjessey MrX power~enwiki |
JFG O3000 SPECIFICO |
0 = (2x1)+(2x0.5) − (3x1) |
C | MONGO MrX MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
JFG SPECIFICO |
0.5 = (1x1)+(3x0.5) − (2x1) |
D | JFG MONGO power~enwiki עם ישראל חי SPECIFICO MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
MrX | 5.5 = (6x1)+(1x0.5) − (1x1) |
E | JFG MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
MrX | 2 = (3x1)+(0x0.5) − (1x1) |
F | Emir of Wikipedia | JFG MrX power~enwiki MelanieN alt |
−3.5 = (0x1)+(1x0.5) − (4x1) |
G | MONGO | Scjessey power~enwiki MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
−3.5 = (0x1)+(1x0.5) − (4x1) |
H | Markbassett | MelanieN alt Emir of Wikipedia |
−1 = (1x1)+(0x0.5) − (2x1) |
The second paragraph of the lead needs a make over. It's far too focused on Trump's persona during the campaign, and it notably omits the fact that he continues to emit falsehoods, and that a great many of his actions and comments are controversial. There also needs be some mention of the public perception of his racial views, along the lines of the first sentence of the 'Racial views' section. Any thoughts on how we can update this paragraph? - Mr X 🖋 16:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Do not include allegations of racism in the lead.) Since the relevant discussion in February, I don't see much new information about such views or criticism thereof that would change the consensus. But obviously, you can try. — JFG talk 17:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
many of his public statements were controversial or falseand
His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.suffice? -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It's simply not credible on the one hand for us to decry RECENTISM and then on the other hand to call "consensus" on stale and outdated content that needs to be recast to reflect our subsequent and current knowledge and available sources. Let's get to the substance here and not "head 'em off at the pass". The current content is stale. BTW, to repeat myself, I'd be fine blowing up the "consensus list" if it's going to be a crutch or barrier that prevents article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Commentators have described Trump's political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Many of his public statements have been false or controversial, and many have been perceived as racially motivated.
Since his childhood, he has been described as brash and bombastic—personal characteristics that helped further his business and political goals.Trump was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, become the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.
Putting this draft out there as a thought starter to get the ball rolling.- Mr X 🖋 20:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no reason to shut down this discussion because the first working draft was not perfect. WP is not the platform for hagiography of public figures. Moreover, even Americans who support Trump for his role in promoting a certain political agenda routinely discuss his many deviations from established standards and expectations. I think the deleted wording about his public manner can be restored later in some form, as it relates to article content. Meanwhile I suggest removing the "or controversial, and many have been perceived as racially motivated" from its current location, since the false statements are not confined to race-related matters. I would locate it instead at the end to read "His election and policies have been controversial, and many have been perceived them to be racially motivated." I think we should offer suggestions to OP and let him be the one to edit the proposed text so that we do not end up with half a dozen alternative versions, since we know from past discussions that these are difficult to resolve. SPECIFICO talk 11:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)T
In 2008, he was nominated for president a year after his campaign began and after a close primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. He was elected over Republican John McCain and was inaugurated on January 20, 2009.For Bill Clinton:
Clinton was elected president in 1992, defeating incumbent Republican opponent George H. W. Bush. At age 46, he became the third-youngest president and the first from the Baby Boomer generation.For George H. W. Bush:
In 1988, Bush ran a successful campaign to succeed Reagan as President, defeating Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
All of these may be somewhat controversial:
I also have thoughts about the "White supremacist support" section that will take longer to write up (and I will do so in a separate discussion); the "Sexual misconduct allegations" may get moved around but I don't plan to suggest significant changes to it. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
74.140.48.236 ( talk) 15:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
hi! please, add to the "donald trump" page under books: "Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump." the author is harry hurt III & published in 1993 (reprinted in 2016).
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-me-feel-violated-during-sex https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tycoon-Lives-Donald-Trump/dp/1626543941
thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.48.236 ( talk) 15:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction, the sentence "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false" shows very clear political bias on the part of the editor: I recommend taking out the "or false" part as it is clearly a case of the writer's bias. When I read a Wikipedia article I expect to read facts, not someone's overt bias against a prominent figure.
Quite frankly, as a reader I am offended reading statements like this: it is as if the writer is trying to tell me how to think instead of presenting unbiased information to me. It also makes me question the overall truth value and validity of this page. 96.236.208.42 ( talk) 06:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I apologize if you have created some structure I missed. I'm not a regular here, and have no idea how I should have known that my comment belonged elsewhere. Nor do I yet see how I should have known. It is standard in many places to close a discussion which is in the wrong place. Why not here? How are editors who rarely visit here supposed to know about unwritten rules?
I've now read the link you provided and suggest it was incompetently constructed. If I were presented with a choice between (A) "many of his public statements were controversial or false" or (B) "many of his public statements were false" I'd probably go with (A) as well. Is it true that "many of his public statements were controversial or false"? Of course. So why on earth am I objecting (I hope you are asking)? Because the question asked omits that the entire sentence is:
His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false.
That construction leaves the impression that the post semi-colon points relate to the pre-semi-colon assertion. I am in full agreement that controversial statements led to extensive and net positive free media coverage, but I don't think one can say the same about false statements. The two concepts deserve discussion, but they should be separated. I see that one contributor to the discussion (O3000 ) made that point, but I think it got lost, becuase the beginning of the sentence was not mentioned.
That attempt to identify consensus should be thrown out because it was ill-formed. Let's start over with the full sentence. If a consensus wants to supported incompetent English phrasing, Ill not fight the consensus, but let's at least have the discussion. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)