Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 177

Archive 170

←

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

reverted edit

@Zaathras What I wrote is not a mandyism, as it is the context of what he said, as stated by the source. I will note, as discussed on that essays' talk page, that it is an often misused essay. My edit is not even the type of edit that the essay is about, as it is not a denial of an allegation. I also cite WP:NOTMANDY. Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Thus far your entire history of editing attempts here have been to water down verbiage in the article that you find disagreeable. Not a good start. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What is your argument for why it is a mandyism, and also for why the essay should apply in this case? Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:MANDY applies. After Heather Heyer was killed on August 12, Trump tweeted a four-minute statement blaming the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". After two days of backlash he he called mmembers of the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists "criminals and thugs" on August 14. On August 15, he reverted to blaming both sides. Later he and his supporters claimed that "his fine people on both sides" didn't mean the white supremacists but the (invisible) people peacefully protesting the removal of Lee's statue. Quoting Mandy: Well, he would, wouldn't he? MOS:EDITORIAL also applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Except NPR ran a story contemporaneous to this event wherein one of these (invisible) statue protestors was actually interviewed. He talked about how they were all very upset about the skinheads coming in and wrecking things when their concerns were much more bland, about preservation of history, etc. *NPR mind you* -- not exactly known for right wing propaganda. The sources are out there; you folks are just so blinded by hatred that you don't care. (I'm not a Trump fan btw, but I am concerned about the breakdown of our institutions including media that was in progress before he came along but which his presence has seemed to accelerate.) 136.49.59.154 (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The article talks about the comments at the unite the right rally. We should mention all the essential details about what he said. Even if it was about some other time he said something, the biography of living persons policy says that articles must state when an allegation is denied. As WP:NOTMANDY notes

'The validity or invalidity of MANDY has been debated extensively by Wikipedia editors. Among their concerns is that MANDY contradicts part of our BLP policy which currently states that when allegations are sourced well enough to be included in a BLP article, then "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too."' Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

What allegation? Description is not allegation. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If it isn't an allegation, WP:MANDY does not apply. If it is an allegation, then WP:NOTMANDY applies. Anotherperson123 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please just answer my question so your concern can be resolved directly and constructively. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The allegation that he was referring to white supremacists/supported white supremacists with this statement. This claim is even apparently subject to a fact check ([1]). Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

So should we say then "but his characterization was wrong as it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's what the sources say, and no sources are found that say something else, that would probably be good, except I would replace "it" with "the rally". Anotherperson123 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will put the proposed change into the article. Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras Please read the diff thoroughly before reverting. My edit addressed the concerns about the previous edit while keeping the talk page consensus. See this talk page section for details. Anotherperson123 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we do need to include the context that Trump explicitly denounced white supremacists in the same statement he said 'very fine people'. The Unite the Right page deals with this better. We are misleading by omission as things stand. MANDY doesn't seem to apply. Riposte97 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not that simple. DN (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

How not? Riposte97 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

For one, the phrasing "although he said he was referring to people who were not white supremacists when talking about "fine people on both sides" uses "although". See MOS:OFCOURSE...There are other factors in regard to how Trump's statements on the matter are already dealt with in the article, so IMO, it doesn't seem so cut and dried. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This is just a criticism of a particular wording, not of the content itself. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. We could easily put the fact in a new sentence. "In the same speech, Trump disavowed…" Riposte97 (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You are making the assumption that's all it is. I would advise against further attempts to keep adding it in without EXPLICIT consensus...

Let's look at it.

• Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protestors.

There is a question of WEIGHT to adding something along the lines of "he was referring to people who were not white supremacists"...because AFAICT, according to sources, there did not seem to be many people there that were not considered white supremacists. It may have been Trump's view that there were, and that makes it more complex.

If you weren't part of that original discussion I highly suggest you check the ARCHIVE first. How it is currently explained in the article may have been the best way forward after much discussion and consideration over prominence in sources. There may even have been a consensus. Did you check the FAQ?

I would also keep in mind that it was reverted more than once by two other (highly experienced IMO) editors [2] [3] despite a WP:CTOP, WP:ARB enforced 24hr BRD boundary, instead of just getting an admin involved. So, for the sake of clarity, I suggest you WP:AGF and DO NOT reinsert it a third time without EXPLICT consensus, because this article gets harder to manage the closer to the election we get. Patience is a necessity here. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary of the first revert read: "Results in a 95-word sentence. Please try again", so I edited again, splitting it into separate sentences. That was reverted by Zaathras who wrote in the edit summary "same word salas as reverted minutes ago", despite it addressing the concerns of the user who reverted it. Zaathras has not yet clarified the meaning of this edit summary.

It seems the way to move forward is this: 1. mention that Trump was not referring to white supremacists/condemned white supremacists in the same sentence 2. mention that there probably weren't many people at the protest who were not white supremacists. What remains is how exactly to word this. Anotherperson123 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Both appear to be your personal opinion, and not supported by sources, which brings us back to whitewashing. You aren't the first account to try this, and likely will not be the last account. Zaathras (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Not helpful, focus on content not editors. PackMecEng (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Both are supported by sources and are part of the compromise of this talk page section. Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What you consider to be a compromise, I do not agree with. Again, just your opinion. Not factual. Zaathras (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The first thing is definitely supported by sources and is even subject to a fact check, as stated above. Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been a week and still nobody has brought any argument against this. Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I see lots of arguments against it aLready made, we do not have to repeat them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

These "lots of arguments" consist of variations of "you're wrong", arguments stemming from a misunderstanding of what is proposed, and arguments against particular wordings. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CON. Unless I overlooked or misunderstood someone, there are two editors supporting your POV and seven opposing it after two weeks since you opened this thread. Time to step away from this discussion? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY There has been little discussion other than editors saying "I disagree" and then never explaining why. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing more is really needed other than disagreement. You're making repeated sub-par edits to a variety of political articles, from this to others. most of which appear to have been reverted. Perhaps it is time to consider another topic area. Zaathras (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

In practice, NOTDEMOCRACY basically just means you can't just vote yea or nay; you have to make an argument with it; pretty much any argument will suffice. In practice, it doesn't mean you can just say your arguments are stronger and expect others to submit; many have tried and failed, including me. Nor can you force others to improve their games, which you appear to be trying to do.

When (1) there is an uninvolved closer, (2) the minority has stronger policy-based arguments, (3) the closer knows the policy, and (4) the closer is prepared to risk having to defend their decision in a closure review (that's a lot of "ifs"), they will close in favor of the minority. Otherwise, we do our best to sway other editors to our viewpoint, and, if we fail in that after some reasonable amount of time (multiple editors are saying we're there now), we take a metaphorical pill and move on. I've done that, say, a thousand times and I can attest that it gets much easier with practice. I can't even remember the last time I lost. My motto: In the end, it's only Wikipedia.

More generally, when you have multiple editors with 30+ times your experience telling you you're wrong, odds are they're right; go along now, understand later. I think that's the first thing I would tell any relatively new editor. For a rough idea of an editor's experience, go to their contribs page, scroll to the bottom, and click "Edit count". That gives you a lot more information than edit count, so the link is misleading. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I've previously said that I thought Anotherperson123's original reverted edit was a good edit, and I think I have a decent amount of experience on Wikipedia, if that matters as you say. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to process, not content. The user is wrong as to process. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

In any case, you might tone it down and not comment on the editor personally. Thanks.

Getting back to the discussion, what do you think is the best objection to the edit? Bob K31416 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No, my tone was about right, though in hindsight some of my little essay probably would've been better placed at their UTP. Getting back to the discussion, I have no opinion as to this content. First clue: I haven't commented about content. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every thread of this talk page topic has ended with someone appearing to concede that this is a good edit, but not posting anything after that. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm relying mostly on this comment. Space4T doesn't miss much in my experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here's the revert in question [4].
Here's an article that has the transcript of the press conference that contains Trump's original "both sides" comment [5]. Trump clarified in that same press conference what he meant, "And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Bob K31416 (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There was more than one statement — see Unite_the_Right_rally#President_Trump's_response, including the infrastructure press conference at Trump Tower with Chao and Mnuchin smiling awkwardly in the background. Trump backtracked and then backtracked from the backtrack and then backtracked from the backtrack of the backtrack. We've been over this several times in the past seven years. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the third paragraph of the lead of that Wikipedia article you referred to [6].

"US President Donald Trump's remarks about the rally generated negative responses. In his initial statement following the rally, Trump condemned the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides."[33] This first statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist protesters and the counter-protesters.[7][34][35][36][37] Trump later stated (in the same statement) that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists".[38][39]"

For comparison, here's the corresponding part in our article, including the reverted part.

"Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning 'this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides' and stating that there were 'very fine people on both sides', were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters, although he said he was referring to people who were not white supremacists when talking about 'fine people on both sides'".

It looks like a good edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It also twice as long. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes paragraphs need to be longer than they are to include the essential information. If a shorter version can be found that includes the essential information, good. If not, then we need the extra length. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

And sometimes it adds nothing, then the place for this is the article about the rally, not him. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to include information about the rally, we shouldn't selectively exclude essential details. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We include the claim he did not mean white supremacists. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the Unite the Right article in a while. The last sentence in the lead paragraph about Trump's statements is cherry-picked whitewashing.

Lead paragraph in 2021

U.S. President Donald Trump's remarks on Charlottesville generated negative responses. In his initial statement following the rally, Trump "condemned hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". While Trump condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists,[31] his first statement and subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were seen by critics as implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them. Critics interpreted his remarks as sympathetic to white supremacists,[8] while supporters characterized this interpretation as a hoax,[32] because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists.[33][34]

Also not great but at least not WP:MANDY in Wikivoice with the intro "Trump later stated (in the same statement) that". That's a problem that needs to be taken care of in that article, and it's not a mistake we should be repeating in this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are on a side that is supported by neo-Nazis and you don't go out of your way to beat the living tar out of them and run them off... then you are not a very fine person. You are, in fact, a neo-Nazi.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a lot worse than WP:NOTFORUM, it's advocating violence. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a philosophical debate around such a thing. Zaathras (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Advocating violence is expressly prohibited by the Wikimedia Code of Conduct. Also, Wikipedia is still not a forum. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Its just an academic discussion or point on the ethics of opposing fascism and hatred ,and the lengths one can or should go. Not everyone is capable of such a discourse though, so, all good. Zaathras (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

As much as I despise Nazis and Nazi apologists, beating the living tar out of people is something Nazis are also well known for, among other things. DN (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and Wikipedia is still not a forum. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be construed as a general comment, they did not specify a name. Off-topic either way, but I've said my piece. DN (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks made, so your link is irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Y'all are REALLY overreacting to a simple colorful idiom. By tolerating the presence of the neo-Nazis, the other protesters on that side reveal themselves to not be "very fine people". Very fine people do not allow themselves to be associated with neo-Nazis.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There were no "other protesters on that side" at the Unite the Right Rally. That was just Trump's spin. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Fast forward to a future where there is a Wikipedia article [[Khajidha]] about a Wikipedia editor who is running in a close race for U. S. president. Editors who are anti-Khajidha have taken control of the article and it is filled with one-sided information. For example there is, "Khajidha has been criticized for advocating violence with the comment 'beat the living tar out of them and run them off'". An editor has tried to include Khajidha's explanation by adding, "although Khajidha said it was just 'a simple colorful idiom '", but couldn't get consensus for the edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Would the "one-sided information" in this hypothetical article include (as this article on Trump actually does) the fact that said comment was made in reference to neo-Nazis? If so, I think I'd be fine with it.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think what's happening here can be summed up as another case where only one-sided information is allowed in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anotherperson123: It appears you're not going to get a consensus for your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There remains no consensus for this suggestion, and no one has to respond if they have already objected. Silence is not acquiescence. So if it is made, it will be reverted. THis is my last word on this, any further comments will be made in any reversion edit summery. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you propose to deal with the fact that the latest sources acknowledge Trump explicitly wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists? We need to address that. Omitting it is fundamentally POV. Also, saying 'there were no non-white-supremacists at the rally' as you have done above is OR. Riposte97 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The two sides were those who wanted to keep the statue of Robert E. Lee (which included the mayor of Charlottesville) and those who were against it. As I recall, Trump said something like, if you get rid of that statue then what about the monuments for slave owners George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved close because an editor objected to a previous attempt to close. The editor who started this discussion didn't say which edits/reverts are being challenged, so here's the recap. Longstanding text:

Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.

Two edits on October 9, edit 1 and edit 2, added this clause:

although he said he was referring to people who were not white supremacists when talking about "fine people on both sides".

without adding any new sources and were reverted.

My opinion: the added clause is editorializing (MOS:OP-ED) and should be excluded per WP:BLPPUBLIC as there are "a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say". Our page cites three sources, dated August 12 and August 15, 2017, and May 8, 2020, confirming our text. Trump hasn’t denied that he said what was reported. He kept making contradictory remarks which is mentioned in the main article but not on this page. The three editors supporting the additional text have cited one latest source[] among the three of them, the Snopes fact-check of this claim: On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people." That’s not a claim our text makes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

I don't think it should be closed because there is an active discussion, including the comment opposing the edit, which was just made by Space4Time3Continuum2x who wants to close. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for three weeks. It had been dormant for a week when Anotherperson123 reopened it by saying basically "I don't accept any of the arguments opposing my opinion", entering WP:DEADHORSE territory, in my opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That was meant to be an invitation for others to bring objections so that their concerns can be taken into account to adjust the edit. It probably should have been worded differently. I am still open to changing the wording if anyone wants to help adjust it. There is probably some way to include this without wording issues. Anotherperson123 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

A claim has been made that nearly everyone has agreed to this edit, I am unsure this is true so lets see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not, and I don't think that was the claim. I counted, and I didn't even need to take off my socks to do it. Sorry, the proposer and the two supporting editors each saying multiple times that it's a good edit doesn't increase the "support" count. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That is how I read "Nearly every thread of this talk page topic has ended with someone appearing to concede that this is a good edit,", not just this thread, every thread. Thuys I thought "lets clear that claim up". Yes, I agree, the consensus is clear, they disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the ambiguousness of the last comments of most of the threads, which I had interpreted as conditionally affirmative, such as this comment. Given Slatersteven's apparent views, it doesn't seem that is the case. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have tried counting multiple times and cannot duplicate your number. I see that there are 4 people against and 3 for, far from an overwhelming majority. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if you're right, which remains to be seen, that merely changes it from "consensus to omit" to "no consensus". The default in case of "no consensus" is to omit, so your point is pointless. At some point we say enough time has been spent trying to reach a consensus, and efforts to keep discussion going until the desired result has been achieved become disruptive to the overall operation of this page. This is not the only important issue under consideration. (Reminder: This is from an editor who has no dog in this content fight.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I counted on November 1. This section was added two days later, and when I added the above edit only SlaterSteven had voted in the "Questions" section. Seems I misinterpreted GoodDay's contribution, and one contributor has since been T-banned. Current count 6 no, 4 yes. And what Mandruss said. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Get ready to update this to "President Trump is the 45th and 47th President of the United States with the largest Electoral College victory in the entire history of the United States while also electing more Supreme Court Justices than any other President in US history." Enjoy champ. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC) What has this to do with the question? Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I need a refresher. What again, is the disputed edit? GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

See this recap. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What I proposed is some version of including that Donald Trump condemned white supremacists/said he was not referring to white supremacists in the same sentence as the "fine people on both sides" claim, combining this with whatever other clarification is necessary to ensure NPOV. The editors for cite WP:BLP, a Snopes fact check, and the transcript. It seems that the editors against are arguing against individual iterations of this, although I'm not certain. They cite MOS:EDITORIALISE. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a tough one, if the former US president did explain himself, later. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a source of confusion for many of the editors. It wasn't on some other day or even later in the speech. It was in the same sentence, juxtaposed with the "fine people on both sides" phrase. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For reference, in the following continuous part of the transcript of the press conference [7], I underlined and bolded two parts that had the fine people remark and clarifications in the same press conference.

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem I see is that no-one; neither Trump nor anyone else, has presented any actual evidence of the otherwise imaginary 'very fine people' on the side that had been wholly organized and led by overt and inarguable white supremists. Without such evidence his 'clarification' is just on-the-fly CYA to cover up his pandering. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I've changed to support. But, I'm just one individual. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We can mention that there were probably no people who were not white supremacists too. I think this would help eliminate the concerns of those who oppose the edit on those grounds. Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, they were in the same group as the White Supremacists and did not disavow their association. That makes them White Supremacists as well. And therefore NOT very fine people. In any case, if you have to specify that "of course I didn't mean the White Supremacists", then you are either too stupid to be allowed in public, or you are a White Supremacist who is trying to hide your views after being called out. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And Trump's attempted equation of a statue to Lee (a traitor) to statues of Washington and Jefferson (founding fathers) is laughable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Association fallacy Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to get awfully upset by people calling out neo-Nazis.....--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record: you're citing the third statement on August 15. Trump's tweet at 1:19 p.m., August 12:

We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!

Trump's first statement two hours later (Heather Heyer had been killed at 1:45 p.m):

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” He then added for emphasis: “On many sides".

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the fine people quote in our article is from the Aug 15 press conference and its transcript that I gave. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me also say that the "very fine people" remark out of the context that it wasn't referring to Neo-Nazis, etc, is misinformation. I think an edit along the lines of the proposed edit helps address that problem. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, lets put it another way, while this discussion is ongoing it is not going to get added per policy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Can we stop wp:soapboxing. Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Question

Do you support this change, just say yes or no, we can see all of the arguments above? Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Real quick, there were a bunch of changes back and forth. So which change? PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: [8] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about any other related threads, but participants in this one should be notified. Can't assume people are still paying attention. @Anotherperson123, Zaathras, Riposte9, Darknipples, PackMecEng, Bob K31416, Khajidha, and GoodDay: ―Mandruss ☎ 19:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC) @Riposte97: Fix typo. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Notifying. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely TBANned from all things Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• No Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Space4Time3Continuum2x we all would agree consensus is not merely about vote count, but if this is about what I think, the change presented issues to which I was also opposed. DN (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Riposte97 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Largely Legible Layman (talk)
• No Zaathras (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No DN (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Ok, let's see if we can expedite this. Three of the participants have yet to vote here:
  • Anotherperson123: I think it's safe to assume they are not going to suddenly switch to "No", so let's give them a "Yes".
  • Bob K31416: Same.
  • PackMecEng, whose only comment was: "Not helpful, focus on content not editors." Like me, they did not participate in the content discussion, and I hesitated to even notify them. Let's give them a "Neutral".

  Tally: "Yes": Anotherperson123, Bob K31416, Riposte97, GoodDay. "No": Slatersteven, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Largely Legible Layman, Zaathras, Darknipples.

  Result: 5–4 in favor of omit. This poll has served its purpose.

  Conclusion: No consensus to include this disputed content.

  Recommendation: Close and move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Gooday voted Neutral then yes, so let's not assume how people will vote. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression this edit meant that GoodDay opposed adding the clause. Oh well, I stand corrected. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• What, I don't count? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• No --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No - O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

So (it seems to me) that no, not only did most users not agree with this suggestion, but most users in fact said no. As such consensus is clear and this should be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A simple counting of yes or no is not determining consensus, which is based on the strength of the arguments. Currently this is an active discussion and shouldn't be closed. Note that in the above discussion I just put in the transcript of the part of the press conference that has the context for the "very fine people" quote in our article and I think this is the first time that it has been on this page. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We already know, the issue is (and was, and will be) is that needed when we already said he denied it. We are (yet again) going over the same arguments. And that is why this needs closing, as it is not going anywhere. If you think you have consensus you would not be afraid to have a close. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A simple counting of yes or no is not determining consensus, which is based on the strength of the arguments. You are correct, and the mechanism for determining that the minority has stronger arguments is called "uninvolved closure". You may request an uninvolved closer at WP:RFCL (you may have difficulty finding a closer willing to take on this one, and your request could easily sit there for months). You either submit that request, or you accept the numbers; you have done neither.

But you can't force people to continue discussion until you're satisfied (common newbie mistake). If others continue commenting, I suppose the disruption is as much their fault as yours. Seems to me most people have had enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes awhile to correct a mistake on a Wikipedia page and it can be an evolving process. As I recall, around the time I came on Wikipedia 16 years ago, maybe later, I suggested the removal of a phrase that prominently appeared in the lead of a policy page, WP:V, although as I found out I wasn't the first one who wanted it removed. That phrase was "verifiability, not truth". Be well, Bob K31416 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Tariffs and farmer bailouts

Would it be due to cover the Trump administration farmer bailouts, following his tariffs? Zenomonoz (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No, as they are not about him. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Have we delt with the legal question that someone is not a "convicted felon" until after sentenceing?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is my understanding that you cannot be a convicted felon, and receives felony status with all the various restriction of such status, until you have been sentenced for the crime. One of the obvious reasons for this is that one of the judges options in sentencing is "Discharge without conviction". Liger404 (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

"List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2026)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2026) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13 § List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2026) until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

False information regarding Russian collusion

“The Mueller investigation determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump.”

This statement constitutes false information. There is no apparent direct source cited and if you click on the link within the statement it directs you to a page that says this near the end:

“The 448-page Mueller Report, made public in April 2019, examined over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.”

Thus, not only is the former statement false and a general misrepresentation of the facts of the report, it’s also contradictory to the embedded link.

If the goal is impartiality and to represent the facts as they are, then I should think there would be no issue with my strong recommendation that this statement be removed. 2600:1014:A021:A239:C4A2:F30D:B193:59A7 (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Well apart from the report itself you mean? Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

can I ask, without knowing the sources enough myself, was that report that notable to get a spot in the lead despite not prooving any collusion of Trump and Russian officials? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

In short: definitely. Cessaune [talk] 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

allright, strange to have that but not a single direct reference to the other reasons why he won the 2016 election, which seems obviously the most notable event that has been reported by reliable sources. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What would you add? Cessaune [talk] 20:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose having this in the lead. There is no suggestion that it was at all determinative, and reads like sour grapes. Riposte97 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Cessaune Look at the Hitler lead (no comparison between the two characters, I am refering to how to describe a complex rise to power). What matters is making the connection direct. RS reported extensivelly about everything regarding Trump win: from economical insatisfaction, perception of Trump as an outsider, anti immigration sentiments etc It is up to editors to not be shy and put social analysis on lead.

Since I am not the most knowledgable about the topic I prefer to discuss it here first, I will not do a bold edit myself unless there is consensus about it.

Regarding Russia interference, it was clearly not determinative as other have pointed out, but I now understand the social relevance of it that grants it a spot on lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't need 'current'

Please folks. We don't need the descriptive "current" in front of "president-elect".AFAIK, there's no US bios using "former president-elect". Therefore no chance of confusion, between bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

actually, that makes sense. thx for the logic-ing! BarntToust 22:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Now, to get editors to stop adding the useless description or variation of it. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Tell them about MOS:CURRENTLY. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump and fascism in the lead

The lead should include a link to the Donald Trump and fascism article that we agreed to keep. This is a very significant viewpoint, as the article explains, with half the electorate holding that position. It has its own lengthy article, is a very serious discussion, is covered in the body, and should be included as a link to the in-depth article in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a rather highly charged opinion which really does not have a place in a biography, especially in the lede. Zaathras (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not, and such WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments were roundly rejected in the AfD. It's a highly significant, serious position that half the electorate and countless experts hold, covered in the body and in an extensive in-depth article (underscoring its significance, as something that should be summarized in the lead per WP:LEAD). It's not a "a rather highly charged opinion" to discuss fascism, in the case of politicians who actually espouse fascist politics. --Tataral (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in a BLP. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure it does, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The questions are whether it belongs in this biography and, if so, where. Don't ask me for my opinions, I'm semi-retired. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not a policy-based argument and it is already included in the article and its own in-depth article, so this is only a question of summarizing a topic already deemed significant enough for a stand-alone article, and which is already covered in this article. Per WP:LEAD the topic should obviously be summarized in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Tone it down a tad there, Mr. Conclusion Jumper. In regards to the topic of Trump and fascism, I personally enjoy seeing the two terms together. Very much so. But Donald Trump and fascism (an article I was unaware of until now) is not a WP:BLP, while this one is. Different standards. Zaathras (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that is a complete misunderstanding of the BLP policy, and it's also your own responsibility to familiarize yourself with the topic and article under discussion. It's telling that you admit that you didn't. BLP is not some magic wand editors can throw around. --Tataral (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree all you wish. It's not going to be linked. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. Whether you agree or not. --Tataral (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's been removed multiple times. Please do not restore it. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

that is a complete misunderstanding of the BLP policy. Lol, it literally isn't. But you seem hellbent on some sort of Lewis Black-like performance art here, so, good luck with that. Zaathras (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The same as we should at least mention Age and health concerns about Donald Trump somewhere in the page, we should also mention Donald Trump and fascism. I just don't think it should be in the lead as previously stated. If there is an entirely separate Wikipedia page about it, I think it's safe to say it has enough reliable, verifiable sources to pass BLP. BootsED (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump and fascism is a much more significant topic than his age and health concerns, since it's about policy and affects society at large, it's about how his policies impact society, the country, and the world. --Tataral (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What is your opinion on the lack of a link to birtherism in Barack Obama ? Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a relevant comparison. --Tataral (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It most certainly is. It is a well-sourced and referenced (albeit debunked) criticism of the former president. Recall your criteria for inclusion of the fascism link in your very first posit of this section, "This is a very significant viewpoint, as the article explains, with half the electorate holding that position." Birtherism was rampant in the lead-up to the 2008 election, held by a comparable half of the electorate. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What's with all the characterization of editors, versus arguments? DN (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an ideological position that more than half the electorate and numerous experts do NOT hold. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, much less a BLP, much less the lead of a BLP. BrianH123 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Violation of BLP, undue weight and an obvious attempt yet again to push a political agenda. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda Artem P75 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No policy-based reasons have been cited for that. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based reason.

To reiterate. It has an in-depth article that was kept at AfD, the close by User:Amakuru pointed out that There is a strong numerical majority in favour of keeping, and furthermore there is evidence in those !votes showing that this is a topic that is widely covered in sources, it is already covered in the body of this article, and as the in-depth article explains it is a highly significant viewpoint held by experts and half the electorate. Per WP:LEAD, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. There is really no serious policy-based argument against summarizing the topic. All we see here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless sound policy-based arguments are presented, we have consensus for inclusion in the lead.

Vaguely throwing around "BLP" as some kind of trump card without understanding the policy and how it relates to public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE) and without actually demonstrating how it supposedly violates BLP is not a policy-based argument; that was rejected at AfD when we discussed the thoroughly referenced article and the topic is already included in this article too, so the discussion can not focus on whether the topic can be included or covered in Wikipedia or this article for "BLP" reasons. What Mandruss said above about WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the question really being whether it belongs in this biography and, if so, where, is correct (it is already included in the biography).

It's therefore solely a matter of interpreting WP:LEAD and the weight the topic—that is covered here already—deserves in light of that. The existence of a dedicated in-depth article is already a very strong argument in favor of the topic's importance; the content and many references too clearly indicate the topic's importance. Many—experts and voters—view this as a defining characteristic of his political style and the way he impacts the world—in the same way their political style and ideology are for any other political leaders. If there are enough references describing a politician's ideology as fascist or far-right, the normal thing to do on Wikipedia is to cover that in their articles, even when we don't have dedicated in-depth articles describing their relationship with fascism(!). For most articles a couple of references are usually enough.

Again, an argument that you don't like the assessment—when we have an in-depth article that treats it as and demonstrates that it is a very serious, very significant viewpoint—is not an argument. --Tataral (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it exists and has an article is why it is in the body, that does not mean it automatically belongs in the lead. Several people have disagreed with you on this and the continued bludgeoning accusations of IDONTLIKEIT are not very convincing on why we should go along with your claims. PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You have not offered any policy-based reasons against including it in the lead. "Doesn't belong in the lead" without any kind of rationale grounded in policy is not a policy-based reason, especially considering the detailed policy-based argument in favor. --Tataral (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The policy based reason everyone is giving is essentially that it is undue for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the article that is being linked to in general and I voted for its deletion - but as it is an active article which apparently conforms to Wikipedia policies, I personally cannot see why it should not be linked to, as bias and full of weight issues as I believe it is.

Looking at this article in general I think the main issue to be discussed is the length and content of the lead itself, which I think has already been discussed? Not sure if there has been an RfC on this issue, but maybe one should be started. The lead is very long and contains in my opinion an excessive amount of content, the majority of which is negative which I feel creates a weight issue and pushes an NPOV.

So maybe this should be discussed, and whether the mention of "fascism" should be included in the lead - if it is decided to stay in the lead then there really is no reason not to link to it, as that is the entire discussion of the article Artem P75 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: No, that is not true. People were throwing around unsubstantiated, generic, vague claims about "BLP" even as that "argument" was being thoroughly debunked—even with reference to the BLP policy itself—or merely their personal opinions, like "Doesn't belong in the lead" without any rationale at all. Now, when these "arguments" have been debunked, you are suddenly claiming "undue", an entirely different argument from the "BLP" claims made so far, but yet again completely unsubstantiated, as a very detailed policy-based argument for why it is due has been made and that no editor has offered any kind of counterarguments against. --Tataral (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the lead = undue for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Without any rationale grounded in policy, it’s merely an assertion that holds no weight. --Tataral (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is policy. Specifically part of WP:NPOV. PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That says absolutely nothing about how that policy applies here or why the material isn't WP:DUE, particularly as a detailed policy-based rationale for why the material is WP:DUE has already been given, with no response or counterargument of any kind. As with BLP, WP:UNDUE isn't some trump card or magic wand you can throw around – if you want your argument to hold any weight – without explaining how and why it actually applies to the specific situation, in light of the sources and other circumstances – in this case, for example a lengthy in-depth article with countless sources explaining that the topic is highly significant and a very widely held assessment and mainstream analysis – and why it doesn't meet the requirements set out in WP:LEAD – particularly when it has already been explained why it does. --Tataral (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

In agreement with others here. It doesn't belong in the lead & indeed, the entire page. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Since no editor has offered any kind of rationale against inclusion of this topic—already deemed significant enough for a stand-alone article at AfD—there seems to be Wikipedia:Consensus for inclusion. All we've seen so far are "doesn't belong" without any kind of policy-based rationale. Here on Wikipedia such expressions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT don't really hold any weight. --Tataral (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to declare what is & isn't a consensus & why, though. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is merely an observation based on what a consensus is—under Wikipedia policy. If you refuse to offer a rationale (grounded in policy), that is your choice, but you cannot expect that opinion to be taken into consideration when determining consensus. --Tataral (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That's only your interpretation. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We gave rationale repeatedly, consensus here is to exclude from the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You have not given any kind of rationale or policy-based argument, even when asked repeatedly (per above). There is a clear consensus for including the content. --Tataral (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If there was consensus, you would have others agreeing with you instead of everyone disagreeing with you. Perhaps check out WP:1AM. PackMecEng (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. Wikipedia is based on policy. If you're not able or willing to engage with policy, and make a policy-based argument, then you have not really made an argument that others need to take into consideration. The nonsensical claims about "BLP" were rejected by multiple editors, but your assertions have also been thoroughly rejected at AfD, and this is not the right place to relitigate the AfD. --Tataral (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're so confident about your position, then open an RFC on the matter being disputed. Though I do advice you in an RFC, pushing that you're right & others are wrong, won't get you very far. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we might have an RFC. --Tataral (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump and fascism in the body – link in a body section already covering the topic

This is blatant vandalism. The discussion above concerns inclusion in the lead. Removing, out of spite, a link in the body to an article directly covering the topic being discussed there (the content had already been in the body of the article for a while) that was kept in the AfD discussion because you disagree with the AfD result is vandalism. Also, it's a blatant lie that any editor has opposed the link being included there, not to mention presented any policy-based reason to censor an article it was decided to keep on AfD by omitting the link to it when the topic is directly mentioned. --Tataral (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that an edit war is developing over trying to keep the link to the other page. I don't see a consensus for the page linkage. I'm not interested in such an edit war, so yas can work it out yourselves. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The only edit-warring is done by User:Zaathras. There is consensus for including the link because AfD decided we were going to keep the article, and there is no legitimate, good-faith, policy-based reason to censor the article when the topic is directly mentioned in another article (which it is in the body of this article). The removal is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is disruptive. --Tataral (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just a link to another page on the topic in a section within the body of the page that deals with the topic. I don't see why there is opposition to including this. Interested readers will click on the link to the page and learn more about the topic at hand. Again, an AfD decided to keep the page, so there isn't really a reason to argue that linking to the page should wait until the AfD is concluded. BootsED (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I apologize, I misread the talk page and have self-reverted my edit Artem P75 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok! No worries. BootsED (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED what policy states we must include a link to the said article in the BLP? This seems like a BLP issue straight out of MOS:LABEL and it's really up to editors to argue why it's WP:DUE. Additionally, per WP:V While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We're not putting it in the lead. This is about a link in the body in a section that already talks about it. BootsED (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the article being on Wikipedia to begin with - since it is an active article, and the comparison between Trump and fascism is made within the Donald Trump article, I don't really see a reason why linking to the Trump and Fascism page is in breach of any policy. I'm not sure about it in the lead, but I don't see any issues with it being in the body Artem P75 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have consensus for putting in the lead of a BLP, and assuming bad faith is disruptive. BrianH123 (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Related article may need attention

I think Political career of Donald Trump, which is prominently linked from this article, could use some attention.

I have started a discussion on the talk page over there. Commander Keane (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Public Image#Incitement of Violence

I am unsure what any of the text of this section has to do with "Public Image". Could someone clarify this for me? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: perhaps for January 6 United States Capitol attack? JacktheBrown (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

JacktheBrown the text should be reworded and sourced to reflect that. As it stands, placement in the Public Image section implies he is known publically for causing hate crimes etc, which fails WP:V at this time. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: feel free to make the change, in the worst case it will be cancelled. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Jack, it seems to be a broader issue than just this part, reflecting a failure of summary style. I'm going to start a new thread on this broader issue below. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Mention of political movement and cult of personality in lead

I recently added mention of Trumpism, the political movement created by Donald Trump and his cult of personality to the page with an abundance of reliable sources (I know the term can be contentious). I recently added it to the lead but there was discussion from @3Kingdoms who stated that "I do not see consenus or RFC for this. The source certainly warrant merit, but I think we should discuss first."

As the lead has recently changed, I would request that the following sentence (highlighted in green) have the bolded parts added to the lead with the following references per Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 20.

1: (Add a period here and split the sentence from the section in #2.)

Many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic.

2:

and hHis election and policies sparked numerous protests and led to the creation of a political movement and cult of personality.

References

BootsED (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

1) Bad revert per consensus #43. 2) I don't think it's lead worthy. We have enough in there already. Cessaune [talk] 04:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Then challenge it by reversion. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)