Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 67
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. 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 60 | ← | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
Race relations under Donald Trump
I think there should be a new section about race relations under donald trump especially in the view of Charlottesville events and the continued controversy about race that follow his presidency (birtherism theory, changing laws around college admissions, receiving praise from KKK leaders etc)
I am not sure if i should submit the whole paragraph or the request for the paragraph first. If you want to add such a section, I am sure many will contribute both sides of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mireilleraad (talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Mireilleraad: The appropriate article would be Presidency of Donald Trump; please suggest your contents there. Remember that everything you write must be well-sourced, not original research. Welcome to Wikipedia, and good luck! — JFG talk 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have seen 3 sources (Vox, Rolling Stone, and Nicholas Kristof of the NYT) find a theme of bigotry throughout Trump's life, apart from his presidency. Could you please elaborate on the case for excluding such material from his article? Avisnacks (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Those first two are highly subjective, especially the college admissions one. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
On August 16, 2017, Fox News (Gregg Jarrett) reported that based on his research, President Trump was the first President of the United States, to ever in the history of the U.S. to tweet, condemn or speak out on the clashes between opposing protestors at rallies such as the Charlottesville, VA episode. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I can't tell what part of this grandiose assertion is more dubious, and there's 4 to choose from...whether Jarrett actually said it, whether Trump actually said it, whether (if 1 and 2 are true) is is even a truthful statement by Trump, or whether (if all 3 are true) it is relevant to this article. TheValeyard (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- sorry, Jarrett actually stated this on Fox News Hannity broadcast, based on his research, over the past 30-years, the bigotry, hatred and violence displayed during the Charlottesville, VA episode. hmmmm Race relations... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I find that written pieces tend to have the most solid foundations in fact since they usually go through a stricter editorial process. Avisnacks (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your proposal is quite dubious, and trying to paint a negative picture, at best. My contribution about Jarrett's research was to show Trump has made efforts towards positive race relations, despite the horrific events in Charlottesville, VA. Trump deserves credit, when credit is due... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am happy to paint a more nuanced picture. I have relied on sources both on the right (WSJ) and the left (NYT, Vox) to attempt neutrality. I am happy to include more exculpatory sources. Like TheValeyard, I doubt that the claim that Trump is the first President to speak out on clashes between protesters holds water. Avisnacks (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
My proposal below:
Accusations of bigotry
Trump has been accused of making bigoted remarks, tolerating racism and antisemitism, and even being a racist himself.[1][2][3] Trump has defended himself as the "the least racist person that you’ve ever seen" and "the least anti-Semitic person that you've ever seen in your entire life"[4] claiming an expansive view of American greatness, in which Americans of all races, ethnicity and religions thrive.[5]
Anti-Mexican comments
In Trump's campaign-launching speech, he said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best." "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."[6] Weeks later he added that "tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border."[7] Trump has defended his statement by saying that "Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally." "I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it."[8]
In a series of Twitter posts, Trump argued that Judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican heritage impaired his ability to impartially judge a lawsuit against Trump University, because of Trump's strong stance against illegal Mexican immigration. These comments were widely perceived to be racist,[9] most notably by Paul Ryan who called them the "textbook definition of a racist comment".[10] Trump defended them on free speech grounds.[11]
White supremacy
.jpg)
In June 2017, the Department of Homeland Security stopped funding the "Life After Hate" program which was intended to de-radicalize Neo-Nazis and stop white extremism.[12]
In August 2017, Trump condemned violence "on many sides" after a car plowed into counter-protesters during a gathering of hundreds of white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia the previous day, on August 12.[13] Trump did not expressly mention Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or the alt-right movement in his remarks.[14] Whereas Republican and Democratic elected officials condemned the violence and hatred of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and alt-right activists, the New York Times noted that Trump "was the only national political figure to spread blame for the “hatred, bigotry and violence” that resulted in the death of one person, as well as two state troopers covering the rally when their helicopter crashed,[15] to 'many sides.'"[16] Trump corrected himself two days later, condemning "the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups."[17] Then the next day, he returned to his initial comments, blaming "both sides".[15] Trump came under criticism from world leaders[18] and politicians[16][14], as well as a variety of religious groups[19] and anti-hate organizations[20] for his remarks, which were seen as muted and equivocal. Avisnacks (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Sources
|
|---|
|
Semi-Protected Edit Request: Trump mental state
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2017
 | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania," Change to add "where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Economics..." Because of [[ Graduation Pamphlet of University of Pennsylvania Two Hundred and Twelfth Commencement for the Conferring of Degrees
PHILADELPHIA CIVIC CENTER
Monday, May 20, 1968]] P.c.chapman (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done - It's in the next paragraph. Objective3000 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.", should say "Before becoming President of the United States, he was a businessman and television personality." 76.115.172.173 (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done This has been discussed numerous times and consensus would need to be reached before making this change. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 03:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
209.240.50.20 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 16:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Trump and white nationalism
"He fumed to aides about how unfairly he was being treated, and expressed sympathy with nonviolent protesters who he said were defending their “heritage,” according to a West Wing official." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-white-nationalists.html?mcubz=0 Where do we draw the line when it comes to Nazism and white nationalism? He's saying what he's always privately held, he's a racist. AHC300 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- We don't draw the line anywhere as that would be WP:OR, but we should look at the WP:RS and make sure that it is WP:DUE. If the sources are unanimous that he is either a Nazi or a white nationalist then their is no reason to abstain from including this information. However if he is merely only liked by such groups then it should not be included. Private views are obviously not WP:VERIFIABLE unless they are shared. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Emir, I saw AHC300's suggestion and I have a few additional sources that could help provide the evidence required to name him as a White Nationalist, or at least sympathizing with alt-right groups or white nationalists. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/15/trump-puts-a-fine-point-on-it-he-sides-with-the-alt-right-in-charlottesville/?utm_term=.4e521f7be23; http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/donald-trump-is-a-nazi-sympathizer/; http://www.newsweek.com/white-supremacy-nationalism-alt-right-state-sanctioned-donald-trump-splc-law-651872 Thoughts on the matter? Nexenhero91 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- When news media regularly refer to him as a white nationalist and it becomes a non-controversial description then we will too. TFD (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Guardian, a pretty well-respected British news source came out with "The President of the United States is now a neo-Nazi sympathiser", while the Washington Examiner (not exactly known for left-wing politics) says "Trump is a neo-Nazi and white supremacist sympathizer" and the LA Times says "As he coddles neo-Nazis, Trump's political isolation increases". I don't think he's actually a Nazi (come on, would he have let his daughter marry a Jew if he was?) but a sympathiser is fair comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- So are you suggesting that we state Trump is a Nazi sympathiser and white supremacist? PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Guardian, a pretty well-respected British news source came out with "The President of the United States is now a neo-Nazi sympathiser", while the Washington Examiner (not exactly known for left-wing politics) says "Trump is a neo-Nazi and white supremacist sympathizer" and the LA Times says "As he coddles neo-Nazis, Trump's political isolation increases". I don't think he's actually a Nazi (come on, would he have let his daughter marry a Jew if he was?) but a sympathiser is fair comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- When news media regularly refer to him as a white nationalist and it becomes a non-controversial description then we will too. TFD (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the Guardian that came out with it, but an article clearly marked as "opinion" by Richard D. Wolff, whose Wikipedia article describes as a "Marxian economist." With all the accusations against Trump of fakenews and confusing opinions with facts, let's apply the same standards to Wikipedia articles that we fault others for falling below. Certainly some people on the left and even right have claimed that Trump is racist and we can report that. But we cannot state it as fact unless there is academic consensus. Even then we would be limited by "Contentious labels", which prevents us from describing even neo-Nazi and KKK members as racist. TFD (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- It seems that a consensus is forming that issues of racism and bigotry are important issues in this biographical article, but that there is certainly no mainstream agreement that Trump is a racist. I agree with TFD that we should be reporting these issues while sticking to the facts. Avisnacks (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Nicknames
Can someone please remove the "nicknames" parameter in the infobox? The article is probably gonna get deleted in the first place, but even if it isn't, I'm sure we would need a consensus to include it first. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- The article exists, so no, there is no call to remove the infobox entry at this time. If you feel the article runs afoul of Wikipedia notability guidelines, there are instructions at WP:AFD to follow to nominate an article for deletion. TheValeyard (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree it should be removed from the infobox. "Nicknames" parameter in infobox was added August 20 and has been challenged so I think it should be removed until we know there is consensus. --72.24.204.166 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I removed it pending the AfD. I don't know if it belongs and think we should wait for the AfD to play out as this is a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- AfD was snow-closed as Delete. Case moot. — JFG talk 12:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I removed it pending the AfD. I don't know if it belongs and think we should wait for the AfD to play out as this is a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree it should be removed from the infobox. "Nicknames" parameter in infobox was added August 20 and has been challenged so I think it should be removed until we know there is consensus. --72.24.204.166 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
An ArbCom request for clarification affecting this article has been archived.
On behalf of the arbitration committee, I would like to inform you that a request for clarification affecting this article been closed and archived here. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us.
Sincerely, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality
The marked lack of citations and the continual referal to consensus being a standard for factual reliability speaks volumes about the political bent of the admins of Wikipedia. This is exactly why no respectable school will accept Wikipedia as a valid source of factual data. While I am impressed with the overall neutrality of this article it is far from being what it should be and the admins should be embarrassed by its clear contempt for the subject, President Trump. ANY reference to false statements should either be cited extensively or removed. ANY mention of political hubris by Trump should either be cited, eliminated, or countered by the opinion of the opposition. When the majority of the admins and editors are politically opposed to the subject of a page consensus is less than worthless and the proper action would be for anyone taking either side to recuse themselves from editing or moderating that page. Another issue of note is that all too many pages on Wikipedia are being created and edited by those who have a fiduciary interest in the subject matter. These are issues that seriously need attention if Wikipedia is going to maintain and increase its relevance. Artis Weaver (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Artis, keep in mind WP gets constantly accused of political bias, but few of these accusations contain substantial or specific problems for us to solve. You should mention specific parts of this article that you think are biased; otherwise, a general comment about how we're politically motivated is not helpful. This article has 621 references, and since this is a BLP of an incumbent President, every passage, particularly those regarding false statements and "political hubris", are properly accompanied by a citation. It is unclear which part of the article you're referring to that is not cited. As for including the opinion of the opposition, it is done where possible, but per WP:UNDUE articles "should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects", so it's not possible to counter every "hubris" with different opinions if they are very minor opinions (and keep in mind this article is already long enough, so more details on specific issues are in subarticles, including opinions and commentaries). And by the way, this might be closer to why Wikipedia is not generally accepted as a valid source. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- 1. What NoMoreHeroes said.
2. I don't know why you referred to admins multiple times. Are you under the impression that admins are responsible for policing neutrality in Wikipedia articles? They are not.
3. You might consider the possibility that your perception of "clear contempt for the subject, President Trump" results from your political bias. You might spend some time browsing past discussions in this page's archives, where you will find many, many consensuses against Trump-negative content. It would give you some perspective that you seem to lack. For just one example, the word "liar" does not occur anywhere in the article, despite extensive media claims that Trump is a habitual liar. That omission is no accident, and the article is regularly criticized as being biased in favor of Trump because of omissions like that. I suspect a majority of the public agree that the article is biased, they just disagree as to which direction.
4. Your suggestion that anyone who "takes either side" should recuse from this article is not sensible. It's impossible to care about politics without "taking either side". Editing an article like this requires knowledge of the subject matter—the more, the better—and people don't acquire that knowledge without caring about it. Second, you presume that editors are incapable of putting Wikipedia content policy before their own political views, and that is demonstrably false; see 3. Finally, if you thought this through to the details of implementation, I think you would find that it's completely unworkable. Not many editors would volunteer to recuse just because we thought they should do so, so you're talking about monitoring every editor's edits and arguments, identifying editors who consistently take a pro-Trump or anti-Trump stance, and topic-banning them. If you seriously want to propose such a thing, which would stand virtually no chance of being accepted, this page is certainly not the place to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Artis Weaver: Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulations on making your first ever edit! However, it is a shame you chose to make this your first contribution to the project. Article talk pages are specifically for discussing how to improve the article, not for screeds lobbing accusations of bias and bad faith against Wikipedia's volunteers. Editors go to extraordinary lengths to keep politically-related articles as neutral as possible, and this one is no exception. I don't really understand the "marked lack of citations" comment. There are currently six hundred and twenty-one individual cited references in this article. Now, I recommend this thread is rolled up and archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I totally second what NoMoreHeroes, Mandruss and Scjessey have explained. Indeed, a fine yardstick of doing a good job at neutrality is when half the people complain about bias for a subject and the other half complain about bias against same.
Looking at the archives of the talk page and reactions from various readers, this particular article is very close to this ideal 50/50 balance. — JFG talk 15:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- What they all said. Objective3000 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am reluctant to continue this wrong-venue discussion by commenting again. I hope this doesn't have the effect of inviting replies and replies to those replies. But I failed to express my views accurately in my point 4, and this is too important to let my comments stand uncorrected.
I feel that an editor who consistently takes one side or the other is not serving the encyclopedia. I have had a comment to that effect on my user page for some time. But the prevailing community view is that Wikipedia content policy and WP:CONSENSUS are enough to protect articles from all but the most aggressive POV-pushers, and that those editors eventually get a topic ban or a full ban. Until that changes, and again this is not the place to try to change it, I refrain from bucking the community view. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Russiagate
I'm a long-standing critic of what I feel is an excessive number of pages regarding Trump-Russia scandals. A few, especially Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia, are not notable enough (IMO) for a stand-alone page. However, there's currently no good merge target for them.
I propose creating a new page called either Russiagate or Donald Trump's Russia scandals . Russiagate, as a neologism, has some usage [1] [2] but I wouldn't say it's a commonly-used term at this time; creating a Wikipedia page under that title could possibly cause it to be promoted in the media as a term. "Donald Trump's Russia scandals" is wordier but un-ambiguous in meaning and unlikely to have any secondary impact.
I'm also not sure whether re-naming Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to an agreed-upon name or creating an entirely new page would be best, if there's agreement for a top-level page. Thoughts? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think that if we do this we have to be very careful about WP:SYNTH issues. For example you mentioned the disclosure of the classified information and the election interference. Is their any source linking the two together? And even if we do a top-level page would it be an overview with links to main articles or would all the information be merged together and create a possible WP:SOAPBOX or could it end up being WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I am not totally opposed to this idea, but I think that we must tread with caution if we undertake such a proposal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's interesting. See the open RfC about limiting the number of Russia-related articles to display in the Trump sidebar. @Power~enwiki:, about "Russiagate", I hope you don't seriously consider that "creating a Wikipedia page under that title could possibly cause it to be promoted in the media as a term". That would be a willful attempt at citogenesis, a hard-to-detect phenomenon that we must strive to stamp out. See for example suspicions of this problem having occurred on Talk:Whataboutism#Any pre-2008 references?
- To avoid WP:SYNTH, we could create a List of controversies about Donald Trump and Russia, but I'm not convinced that would be a productive exercise. A more promising avenue is to notice that a lot of the contents in the various Trump–Russia articles is duplicated, so that selective merge is possible per WP:CFORK. For example, Comey memos was recently merged into Dismissal of James Comey. Surely some other news-spike events which haven't developed beyond the initial reports could be merged as well. Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia is a good example; I would merge it into Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration or into Russia–United States relations. — JFG talk 07:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for informing of the RfC. I have already voted C, as I don't believe that hiding any of the information is helpful to a reader. That template uses the phrase Russia controversies, and lists different controversies with Russia but doesn't make it seem like it is linked other than that they both have to do with Russia and Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. It seems that any news story that includes the words "Trump" and "Russia" gets a new Wikipedia article because widespread press coverage "automatically" imparts WP:GNG. This is not sustainable. Thankfully, some of the "shocking-tweet-of-the-day" articles do not survive prompt AfDs. — JFG talk 15:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for informing of the RfC. I have already voted C, as I don't believe that hiding any of the information is helpful to a reader. That template uses the phrase Russia controversies, and lists different controversies with Russia but doesn't make it seem like it is linked other than that they both have to do with Russia and Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Power~enwiki - Renaming or merging Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections seems a poor idea as that is a well-known large meaty topic, and also as it's nominally about Russian actions -- Trumps Russian Scandals would be things Trump did. And JFG is right -- the open RfC about there being way too many Trump articles on trivial items (805 articles today) or repeating material - but I'm thinking that making another for 'List of Trump and Russia Stories" would just add one more rather than eliminate any. The growth in numbers seems slowed, perhaps as the large number now means folks find a larger article something new fits into so that separate articles are not started or merge smaller articles into, but that's a natural happening and isolated incidents rather than made-up synthesis of items. ... ... ... I don't have any great solutions here, but suggest just let it be. Markbassett (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- What Markbassett said. I think this is a well-meant but ultimately hopeless proposal. There is just too much information to combine - unless we create a "list" type article without removing any of the existing articles. And please, whatever we do, not "Russiagate"! In the first place, I am sick of labeling every scandal Something-gate, and in the second place, calling something "gate" automatically labels it a scandal - a word we have been careful not to use with regard to this investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with Markbassett and MelanieN. We're dealing with a new situation, even for Wikipedia. Trump is unique and probably has already set a record with number of articles here. Hey, "someone's got to do it"!
I also agree with JFG that momentary news spikes, with no lasting effect, usually mean the content ends up in a larger, existing, article, and that's how it should be. Above all, we must remember WP:PRESERVE. During the process of actually necessary merges, no RS or content should be lost. If merging would then make the main article balloon too much, that means the merge should not occur. Sometimes such a merge can work because of duplication, and other times not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Shoot for B-class or GA label?
The article has been quite stable for a while, controversial topics were properly addressed by consensus, and the talk page is free of major disputes. Would this be the right time to submit the article for a B-class review? — JFG talk 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Checking the criteria, it seems to me that we could even try obtaining the WP:Good Article label now. — JFG talk 04:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Situation seems little changed from prior rejects for GA and remark it is not even B class. Stability still seeing multiple changes every day, always multiple dispute resolution RFCs in progress, Talk of NPOV, Talk of significant restructure/reduction, Talk of significant additions, Talk guidance still evolving, etcetera. I think Power~enwiki helped with July guidance about not repeating everything in the blp, and cites needed a bit better, plus gone down from election era frenzied activity.... But less insane does not yet seem "good". Markbassett (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- I too wonder if it is yet good for even B-class. There are still a number of unresolved disputes. Lorstaking (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Walking into dressing rooms
The following was added to the Sexual Misconduct Allegations today:
Trump had previously described his practice of walking in unannounced while teenage beauty pageant contestants were naked or partially clothed, during a Howard Stern interview in 2005, saying "you know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that."[1]
User:Awilley modified it to:
Other recordings surfaced including a 2005 radio interview with Howard Stern in which Trump described barging into dressing rooms at beauty pageants while contestants were nude or partially clothed.[2]
User:Scjessey restored the original wording. I have removed the entire thing, subject to discussion here. Options are 1) don't mention this at all; 2) use the original addition, including a quote from him and sourced to a Rolling Stone article about Trump's "creepiness"; or 3) use Awilley's modification, without the quote and sourced to the Washington Post. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Sources
|
|---|
|
- Personally I would leave out the whole thing. We already have extensive material on his crude remarks about women. This was a one-time macho brag of his, twelve years ago,
and AFAIK it has not been corroborated by any of the girls or women who were part of his pageants.But if we are going to include something about this, I would prefer option 3 as less tabloid-y and more encyclopedic. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Update: I stand corrected. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)- Re: "AFAIK it has not been corroborated by any of the girls or women who were part of his pageants" [3] [4] ~Awilley (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- For corroboration see Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Allegations of pageant dressing room visits. This article already includes about 175 words about the "grab them by the pussy" brag, which has less corroboration, as far as I can tell only that at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Kristin Anderson (1990s) (actual, depending on what "grope beneath skirt" means) and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Jessica Leeds (1980s) (attempted). All this considered, I would favor a TBD Option 4: one or two sentences summarizing both his statement and the corroboration of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but our article on the topic is written in an intentionally biased manner to conceal all of the evidence suggesting these claims are baseless—which is most of the evidence, and most of the testimony. BuzzFeed interviewed 16 of 51 contestants from the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant; five alleged that Trump visited their dressing room, whereas 11 denied it. The contrast between the source and Wikipedia is jarring:
Of the 11 women who said they don't remember Trump coming into the changing room, some said it was possible that it happened while they weren't in the room or that they didn't notice. But most were dubious or dismissed the possibility out of hand. "There were so many chaperones I can't even fathom" him doing so, said Jessica Granata, the former Miss Massachusetts Teen USA. "It was very secure." Allison Bowman, former Miss Wisconsin Teen USA, cast doubt on whether it happened. "These were teenage girls," Bowman said. "If anything inappropriate had gone on, the gossip would have flown." "There was way too much security," said Crystal Hughes, the former Miss Maine Teen USA. "If that was something he did, then everybody would have noticed." Asked why some of her fellow contestants said he did enter the changing room, Hughes responded, "They’re probably lying because they are voting for Hillary Clinton."—Source: Taggart, Kendall; Garrison, Jessica; Testa, Jessica (2016-10-13). "Teen Beauty Queens Say Trump Walked In On Them Changing". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 2017-08-29.
Trump also entered the dressing room of the Miss Teen USA pageant in 1997 while the girls were dressing. The youngest contestants were 15 years old. He told the girls, "Don't worry, ladies, I've seen it all before." Of the 15 former contestants who were interviewed, none alleged Trump said anything sexually explicit or made physical contact in the dressing room. ... The dressing room had 51 contestants, each with their own stations. Eleven girls said that they did not see Trump enter the dressing room, though some said it was possible that he entered while they were somewhere else, or that they didn't notice. Allison Bowman, Miss Wisconsin Teen USA, expressed skepticism: "these were teenage girls. If anything inappropriate had gone on, the gossip would have flown." Billado recalled talking to Ivanka, Trump's daughter, who responded "Yeah, he does that." Trump's campaign stated the allegations of him entering the dressing room "have no merit and have already been disproven by many other individuals who were present."—Source: Wikipedia, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Allegations of pageant dressing room visit, purporting to cite the above BuzzFeed article through this derivative New York Post piece.
- Wikipedia states the allegations against Trump as a fact in its own voice, implies that 40 contestants (rather than five) concurred on the dressing room visits, misrepresents the eleven skeptics as merely conceding that they
"didn't notice"
Trump's presence (whereas BuzzFeed explicitly notes"most were dubious or dismissed the possibility out of hand"
), and attributes actual doubt to Bowman alone (in fact, her's was the majority opinion). (In turn, Bowman was likely chosen because her comment about"gossip"
was considered weaker than Granata and Hughes's insistence that the massive security/chaperone presence would never have given Trump free reign.) Moreover, all such allegations are difficult to square with first-hand accounts of how the pageants are actually run:
Amy Colley Tyson recently wrote her personal account of meeting Donald Trump on her Facebook page. In it, she provides a timeline of events on what happened to hear during her time as Miss Tennessee USA during the 2005 Miss USA pageant.
- 6:00pm—delegates released to dressing rooms (2 rooms total) to begin prep for live telecast. We were assigned one of two rooms based on our state title in alphabetical order. My assigned area was directly across from entrance on right hand side between Texas and South Dakota. The organization gave us 2 1/2 hours to complete prep.
- 8:20pm—15 minute warning announced: chaperones, who were present at ALL times, announced Mr. Trump and his wife, Melania, would be briefly visiting the room to greet us. The chaperones instructed us to be completely dressed and appropriate.
- 8:30—5 minute warning. The chaperones walked along the room to ensure we were appropriate and to offer assistance to anyone should they request.
- 8:35—Last announcement warning: this ensured we were appropriate and dressed. Mr. Trump and his wife, Melania, entered dressing area to say hello just after arriving to the building. Their visit was brief, pleasant, appropriate and 3 minutes maximum. Mr. Trump greeted us and wished us good luck. Melania spoke as well. Not once did he glance, speak or gesture inappropriately in our dressing room. He kept his gaze on Melania during most of the encounter. Chaperones were present at all times. Mr. Trump and his wife then exited to enter the next dressing room.
- 8:45—Delegates released from dressing rooms to line up in wings stage right and left.
- 9:00pm—production begins.
- ... Tyson's experience compliments the personal account of fellow 2005 Miss USA contestant, Miss Kansas USA Rachel "Saunders" Imdieke, as previously reported by the Inquisitr.—Source: Frye, Patrick (2016-10-16). "Donald Trump Walking In on Half-Naked Contestants of '1997 Miss Teen USA' Allegations: Former Miss Tennessee Amy Colley Provides Personal Account Meeting Trump at '2005 Miss USA'". Inquisitr. Retrieved 2017-08-29.
- I previously attempted to add some of this conflicting information to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations—or at least revise the BuzzFeed text to bear some slight resemblance to the source—but was totally blocked by editors insisting that the purpose of the article was solely to document negative claims about Trump. Thus, testimony such as Tyson's was deemed "off-topic," even when the sources considered it relevant.
- I would support 1 or 3 here, but the bigger problem is that our dedicated article ignores WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and even WP:V in a transparently one-sided effort to treat every allegation against Trump as undisputed fact.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Brevity is the
solesoul of wit. The original is more accurate. The revision is more in keeping with guidelines. I support Awilley's mod. But, let's drop the aspersions. Objective3000 (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC) - 3 is good sturdy encyclopedic prose. 1 seems like undue detail for his bio article. May belong in a different article. NPOV BLP and V complaints are nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Brevity is the
- I would leave out anything that did not receive widespread coverage in mainstream media such as CNN. Per policy this article is not the place for people to go to find things that are ignored in mainstream sources but to read what mainstream sources find important. TFD (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I failed to be clear that I wouldn't use the word "corroboration" in our prose, nor would I imply that the allegations are unanimous or undisputed (it would be highly surprising if they were). "Some pageant participants alleged", or something similar, would be both accurate and policy-compliant. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think editors should wait 30 or more days before adding any more of this kind of material. It seems to be a matter of some contestants say he walked in on them at an inappropriate time and others say this is not so. Personally, I would like to add to this article that he definitively did this. However, I don't think this Wikipedia article will be lacking if this is revisited at a much later time. It is possible that more perspective will be available later - imho. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- If it is to be included I think one short sentence is sufficient. I don't think the additional allegations from pageant participants need to be mentioned here. That Trump said what he said is uncontroversial. The accusations are less so, though they definitely added to the story's "notability". @TFD, According to Fox [5] it was CNN that broke the story [6]. @Objective, I think you meant "soul" ;-) ~Awilley (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well this sure was a creepy episode if it happened like that. A properly encyclopedic article would mention that the Trump campaign issued a denial.[7] So it seems the campaign wanted everyone to believe Trump was just BSing to Stern. Which seems possible though unlikely. If we include the quote from the Stern show, I oppose cutting off the last six words which make things a bit more ambiguous: "And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good." Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Anything, In case this was a reply to my comment, let me clarify that I oppose including the quote at all. Also if you look at the sentence's location in the article, [8] the very next sentence begins, "Trump and his campaign have denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations..." ~Awilley (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Awilley, I'd feel better about your draft if we replace "described" with "talked about" or something like that. Incidentally, Trump's account to Stern apparently referred to "women" so we probably shouldn't say he talked to Stern about girls or teenagers, as the other draft does above. But if we don't discuss any allegation regarding the pageants, and instead only describe dueling statements by Trump, then maybe this stuff doesn't belong in this section? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Anything, In case this was a reply to my comment, let me clarify that I oppose including the quote at all. Also if you look at the sentence's location in the article, [8] the very next sentence begins, "Trump and his campaign have denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations..." ~Awilley (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well this sure was a creepy episode if it happened like that. A properly encyclopedic article would mention that the Trump campaign issued a denial.[7] So it seems the campaign wanted everyone to believe Trump was just BSing to Stern. Which seems possible though unlikely. If we include the quote from the Stern show, I oppose cutting off the last six words which make things a bit more ambiguous: "And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good." Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- @all: I'm puzzled. Why is this story from October 2016 resurfacing now? The election is over… We've had the relevant editorial debates at the time, is there anything new? — JFG talk 06:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Awilley, according to Fox, CNN found the tape where the comments were made. But the CNN article doesn't mention these comments. Even if it had, a single mention is not the same as widespread coverage. Donald Trump is in the news ever single day and has been for 2 years and will continue to be as long as he is president. We need to follow policy: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." TFD (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- My view is that IF we include any of it, Trump's quote is an important aspect of it. He's openly bragging that he abused his power to see naked women, which would be shocking and nauseating if it was coming from anyone other than Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I support the first version, with his quote. Agree with Scjessey. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Per discussion above, if we are to use the first version (my option #2) we should strike the word "teenage". Anythingyouwant quite properly points out that Trump's brag referred to "women," and neither he nor the source suggest that this happened at the teenage pageants - which (as contestants suggested) almost certainly were chaperoned in a way the adult pageants were not. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that it was ALSO the teenage contestants who complained, and the complaints were spread over several years. The fact that some didn't experience it does not negate the fact that others did and complained, so let's stick with what RS indicate. It was ALSO the teenage contestants. Therefore we should mention "adult and teenage contestants". -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Five complained one month before the election, but everyone else interviewed by BuzzFeed was unanimous that it never happened, and they all shared one big dressing room. The claims are indeed
"almost certainly"
false, because for Trump to have engaged in such behavior would have required a huge list of enablers, yet no chaperones or security personnel or anyone else with first-hand knowledge has since come forward to corroborate the allegations. To the contrary, the story began and ended with BuzzFeed and a few derivative tabloids and has since completely died. Not only does it not belong here, it should be removed from Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations as an WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:BLP vio.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- You're forgetting that these two very important people confirm it:
- Ivanka Trump: She was unsurprised and confirmed that "he does that".
- Trump himself: "You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that ... I'll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else."
- The Trump campaign's later denials are akin to Trump's attempts to deny that he grabs pussy:
- Women complain that he was creepy and sexually assaulted/touched/whatever them.
- He confirms that he does that type of thing by bragging that he grabs pussy.
- When his quote becomes public he denies, but that doesn't wash because there are too many people who confirm that the bragging is Trump speaking truth, and because there is nothing in his personality, character, and history which gives even a smidgen of doubt that he would do these things. When reasonable people hear these things, they shrug and think "That's par for the course. It's just Donald being Donald. That's who he is." -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Trump's words "confirm" nothing. We can't call him a habitual lying blowhard (in talk) when it serves our argument and then take his words at face value when it serves a different purpose. Ivanka is a different matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Ivanka "quote" is not a quote at all, but something recounted by one of the five accusers, Mariah Billado.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Trump's words "confirm" nothing. We can't call him a habitual lying blowhard (in talk) when it serves our argument and then take his words at face value when it serves a different purpose. Ivanka is a different matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Five complained one month before the election, but everyone else interviewed by BuzzFeed was unanimous that it never happened, and they all shared one big dressing room. The claims are indeed
- Leave it out. It's political banter hyping-up Trump as the flambouyant showman and wanna be international playboy. Trump's tv persona made headlines and publishers/producers loved it (cha-ching), much of it was taken out of context, and while some may find it entertaining or news worthy, it is far from encyclopedic. To that add its controversial nature which requires close adherence to NPOV and UNDUE which also suggest leaving it out. Not everything that was published in multiple RS belongs in the encyclopedia. Atsme📞📧 16:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
163.47.126.104 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
RfC about Russian affairs in Trump sidebar
You are invited to participate in Template talk:Donald Trump series#RfC: Selection and display of articles about Russia. — JFG talk 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
First sentence
"Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017." To me, the "in office since..." part sounds ungrammatical at worst, and unnatural at best. Perhaps editors may want to consider working on the first sentence. JDiala (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- For editors working on the first sentence, click the links at #Current consensus item 17. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Consider "Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States, serving since January 20, 2017." Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 07:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Donald Trump and handshakes
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump and handshakes (2nd nomination). epicgenius (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some editors have expressed concerns on Talk:Donald Trump and handshakes that this is not a notable subject on its own, so I am posting this here for discussion. epicgenius (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Merge This is ridiculous. People thought this was notable enough to pass AfD and be a DYK? He shakes hands. He pulls on other hands when he shakes them. Media has taken notice of this. We need an article for it? WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Now that I looked at the AfD, it was only a speedy close because it was on the main page, and main page linked articles can't be under discussion for deletion. Another trip to AfD may be better than a merge discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. But I'll stay uninvolved in a future AFD since I already procedurally closed the last one. epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Now that I looked at the AfD, it was only a speedy close because it was on the main page, and main page linked articles can't be under discussion for deletion. Another trip to AfD may be better than a merge discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It should be merged, but not here - not to Donald Trump. That wasn't even proposed at the AfD back in July. The proposals for a merger were to merge it to either Donald Trump in popular culture or Presidency of Donald Trump#Leadership style and philosophy, or both. I'm inclined to AfD it again, since the last one was "no consensus" - while mentioning these as possible merge targets if that is the community's will. Somebody beat me to the AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: would you consider removing your proposed merge to Donald Trump? Thanks for the suggestion, but the Handshakes article is now at AfD again - and pending the outcome of that discussion I may propose a merge to Donald Trump in popular culture#Handshakes. That's how we solved the problem of the article Donald Trump's hair a few months ago. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Done. epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, that was fast! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2017 (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.
5th 4th President To Lose Home State
It mentions Nixon lost his home state of New York. This is misleading because only Nixon's residence was technically New York just at the time he ran. His home state in actuality was California. It needs to be noted that Nixon carried his home, although he lost his technical state of residence which was New York in 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.223.132 (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the "home state" of a candidate in a presidential run is the state in which he/she resides at the time of the run and where he/she files election paperwork. Nixon's state of residence during his run was New York; where he lived before, or where he lived mostly, is irrelevant in this case, but I'm not sure so I'll wait for others to weigh in on this. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I never saw the point of including this bit of trivia. Anyone else favor deleting those two sentences entirely? --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with MelanieN, it seems pretty trivial. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that being either the 4th or 5th president to lose their home state is an irrelevant bit of trivia that is unnecessary to include. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with MelanieN that this is trivia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- What is more surprising is he only received 10% of the vote in his home borough, Manhattan. And both are trivia. Objective3000 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with MelanieN that this is trivia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that being either the 4th or 5th president to lose their home state is an irrelevant bit of trivia that is unnecessary to include. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with MelanieN, it seems pretty trivial. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I never saw the point of including this bit of trivia. Anyone else favor deleting those two sentences entirely? --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Another overeager rush to declare consensus. This is not helpful. To get a broad sampling, these moots need to be up for more than a day or two. I'd think that's obvious. I'm sure WP has statistics as to the relative frequency of logins at various editors cross-tabbed with total numbers of edits and other metrics. I'm not sure this is so trivial. Something so exceptionally rare -- and I agree Nixon was not at the time considered a New Yorker by those who lived there -- may have significance. In fact, RS tell us most NY'ers took him to be a kind of crass misfit and certainly Manhattan residents paid him little attention and were long reported to have viewed him as a vulgar "bridge-and-tunnel" type -- an outsider. So I think this should be self-reverted until more editors can share their views. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks like consensus. I deleted it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, edit conflict. If people object, I will revert. Are YOU disagreeing with the removal itself, SPECIFICO, or only saying it needed more time? (And actually I didn't need ANY consensus to remove it. I could have boldly removed it. Then we would be talking about whether to restore it. I asked for some other opinions first just because that's the way I am.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Marijuana on sidebar?
I don't know if this question has already been dealt with, but I can't find any particular discussion about it... why is marijuana listed in the Trump sidebar? It sits adjacent to "Social Policy", but has there really been much talk or policy about it, either on the campaign or since the inauguration? Even the Social Policy page makes only a few references to marijuana, and it isn't something Trump talks about much on Twitter or at his rallies. Drugs have featured as a source of debate under Trump, but mainly about Mexican contraband and opioids. Surely a more representative Social Policy sub-section on the sidebar (if any is needed at all) would be LGBTQ rights, or perhaps freedom of speech (viz. Confederacy monuments). Any thoughts? Cpaaoi (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is a question for Template talk:Donald Trump series. --20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Emir of Wikipedia (talk)
Primary topic of "The Donald"
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.
TL;DR - re-target The Donald to Donald Trump.
The Donald used to redirect to Donald Trump. However, a discussion with minimal participation took place a while back which resulted in The Donald being redirected to /r/The_Donald. The nickname "The Donald" has referred to Trump throughout the years much more than it has the subreddit and is the obvious primary topic. However, I think everyone, including myself, would be against putting a hatnote "for the subreddit, see..." at the top of the article on the President of the United States. I'm requesting that The Donald be re-targeted to Donald Trump and I'm doing it here because it will get more input than if I put it at Talk:The Donald.
Pinging editors of the original discussion @JFG, Molandfreak, and Yoshiman6464:
Thanks,
DrStrauss talk 20:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retarget -I have always been for the retargeting of this page. To me, this is a "chicken or the egg" question. Trump has been known by this nickname for many years and the subreddit has only been active for two years. Redirecting the page to a derivative subreddit based on the nickname is confusing to me, and I'm sure others agree. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am against the retarget if it without a hatnote or a link to the disambiguation page, as it will make it difficult navigate to the subreddit article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Retarget Absolutely. I can see no reason for us to redirect to an article about a Reddit forum, when there is a perfectly good Wikipedia article we can use as a target. Most people are probably looking for his Wikipedia page in any case. As for "making it difficult to navigate to the subreddit article" - you say that like it's a problem? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. After reading our description of the subreddit -
The subreddit has been accused by news outlets of hosting conspiracy theories, and content that is racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or white supremacist.[8] The site has been repeatedly accused of providing a "safe-harbor" where racists, white-nationalists, and white supremacists press their views.[9] According to the Economist, "few corners of the internet are fouler". Its members spew "conspiracy theories, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism".
- I think it is almost a BLP violation for us to point people there, instead of to this biographical page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retarget: Donald Trump is the primary topic; the Reddit article would not have its title were not Donald Trump referred to as "The Donald", and it's frankly questionable as to whether the Reddit article should even be there at all. pbp
- If we don't include a hatnote for the subreddit could we at least add ? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say no. Our hatnote already directs people to Donald Trump (disambiguation). They will find a link to the reddit article there. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retarget to here. ~Awilley (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retarget since Trump is the namesake. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Strong retarget per the excellent points above. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retarget, "The Donald" has been Trump's nickname long before Reddit even existed. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment is invited at Presidency of Donald Trump
Comment is invited as to some content about Pres. Trump. [9] SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Lies
As a follow-up on the RfC that was recently closed, and in light of yesterday's New York Times news article (not opinion) discussing Trump's "lies," I would like to start an ongoing, no-archive thread in which we collect all of the reliable sources that discuss whether Trump has lied. The fatal flaw with the RfC, in my view, was that the proposal wasn't readily verifiable: it included an overwhelming list of sources, many of which were opinion sources (not reliable for facts) or that only discussed whether Trump's statements were false. (Not all false statements are lies.) It also made no effort to include reliable sources that say Trump did not or does not lie. I don't know how many such sources exist; that is the purpose of this discussion.
I am not proposing any changes to the article at this time. I'm merely requesting research help. If you think a source should not be on the list, please tag it, discuss it, and/or move it into a new subsection or something. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sources
- Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). "Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication". The New York Times.
Discussion
|
This is obviously for political reasons. There are many other politicians (Hillary Clinton, Romney, etc.) who also have numerous reliable sources stating they lie, but they are not put under the same scrutiny on Wikipedia.--97.124.67.164 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I say this be included in the article. 31.215.113.174 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Re [10]. I know there was (were) an exhaustive (several) discussion on the "lies" and "falsehoods" thing, consensus was to include it, so why is this being removed now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- You may be thinking of #Current consensus #7, which was only about the lead. I don't recall a consensus as to body, but if one exists it needs to be located and added to the list. Noted that a mention in the lead generally requires something in the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- That was my understanding as well, I did not see anything in consensus about the body. With that since @Bergeronp: removed it originally we can talk about it here to see if it should be kept or not. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also suggest a new section, as this one is specifically and solely about the words "lie" and "liar", and their variations. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the picture at the top of the page to be Trump's presidential portrait. Other presidents have their official picture and not a candid photo. A copy of the presidential portrait can be found at http://conservativefiringline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Donald_Trump_President-elect_portrait.jpg Ian S. Mills 05:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mills.ian (talk • contribs) 05:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not done the image you linked is not a free image. Please see the discussion in the talk page archives ([11] and [12]) EvergreenFir (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI: the Washington Post has an article on the problems other organizations have had with finding an official portrait: [13]. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I actually just read that. It seems there is no official portrait. At least not one taken by a federal government employee, which would satisfy inclusion in Wikimedia. I guess they just decided to stick with the copyrighted images from the transition period. Apparently WP is not the only one with this problem. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- No official photo yet -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- In Trump's defense, same thing occurred during Clinton's presidency. Hopefully someone makes a petition for a public domain portrait or something. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, that's really interesting! And no, the same thing did NOT occur during Clinton's presidency. According to that WaPo article there was an official Clinton portrait by June. This is (checking my calendar) September. BTW I used to refer to that previous picture (the one from the White House website, that turned out to have copyright issues) as "scowling". Not everyone agreed with that description, but I see the Washington Post does. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- This source contradicts that, says Clinton portraits took a year to get distributed but idk. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/25/trump-pence-portraits/510186001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.154.16 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, that's really interesting! And no, the same thing did NOT occur during Clinton's presidency. According to that WaPo article there was an official Clinton portrait by June. This is (checking my calendar) September. BTW I used to refer to that previous picture (the one from the White House website, that turned out to have copyright issues) as "scowling". Not everyone agreed with that description, but I see the Washington Post does. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- In Trump's defense, same thing occurred during Clinton's presidency. Hopefully someone makes a petition for a public domain portrait or something. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- No official photo yet -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Image
Can we replace the current image with this one?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- You can discuss it here, if you like, but do not add it unless there is a consensus to do so. Right now there is a long-standing consensus for the current image; see Current consensus above, #19. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- This picture is heavily distorted, and Poroshenko would have to be edited out, leaving a low-resolution Trump. I don't see the potential benefit. — JFG talk 23:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- i think this is a great photo, shows trump in a better way than the current one, and it's not low resolution. Angelgfg12345 (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Its a manipulated image as you can see Trump looks more "orange" in the original ...--Stemoc 10:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I was under the impression there was wide agreement that the current photo is only a "stop-gap" to occupy the infobox during the time between the abrupt deletion of the previous photo and an RfC to select a more long-term image. That discussion closed almost 3 months ago, where the current image "won" with only 50% of only 14 !votes. This is not an RfC, and it presents only one new option. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- As I recall, the "stop-gap" photo assumed we would someday get a new "official" portrait of Trump, which we would then use as per Wikipedia tradition - and until then we would simply use the one we had and stop arguing about it. A new official portrait hasn't been forthcoming, and the actual White House portrait (the "scowling" one) remains off limits to us because of copyright issues. I for one am happy to settle on the current photo as "good enough" and would prefer not to re-open the endless pre-inauguration debates about what image to use. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Previous attempts to establish a moratorium on discussion of the infobox image have failed to gain consensus, mostly on philosophical grounds. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Mandruss, nothing stops you from opening an RfC. I would suggest you first do some kind of request for possible images, maybe use an informal poll to narrow it down to a few, and then launch an RfC. (Although past experience suggests that attempts to limit the number of portraits in the RfC are ineffective, which is one reason why the debates went on forever.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- My opinions about infobox image discussions are laid out at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 48#The futility of extended infobox image discussions. In my view such RfCs should be democratic voting only, sans interminable debate, with multiple rounds. That approach was shot down by an admin (even following extended discussion in that case) despite overwhelming local support and the support of two other admins, and I'm not going to forward it again. Thus I'm not a good choice for RfCs about infobox images. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- What Mandruss said. — JFG talk 05:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well that's a shame, Mandruss, seriously, because given the dynamics of the situation the solution you outline is the only one which makes any sense and has any chance of success. Perhaps someone else will take up the cause. Marteau (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- My opinions about infobox image discussions are laid out at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 48#The futility of extended infobox image discussions. In my view such RfCs should be democratic voting only, sans interminable debate, with multiple rounds. That approach was shot down by an admin (even following extended discussion in that case) despite overwhelming local support and the support of two other admins, and I'm not going to forward it again. Thus I'm not a good choice for RfCs about infobox images. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Mandruss, nothing stops you from opening an RfC. I would suggest you first do some kind of request for possible images, maybe use an informal poll to narrow it down to a few, and then launch an RfC. (Although past experience suggests that attempts to limit the number of portraits in the RfC are ineffective, which is one reason why the debates went on forever.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Previous attempts to establish a moratorium on discussion of the infobox image have failed to gain consensus, mostly on philosophical grounds. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- As I recall, the "stop-gap" photo assumed we would someday get a new "official" portrait of Trump, which we would then use as per Wikipedia tradition - and until then we would simply use the one we had and stop arguing about it. A new official portrait hasn't been forthcoming, and the actual White House portrait (the "scowling" one) remains off limits to us because of copyright issues. I for one am happy to settle on the current photo as "good enough" and would prefer not to re-open the endless pre-inauguration debates about what image to use. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- This image appears superior to the current existing image found in the info-box. Whilst I know this debate on images have been long-standing, considering we still do not know if or when a suitable official White House portrait of Trump in the public domain can be used, I agree that this image is better than the present one and support use of this. Hopefully we can all come to a concensus. JLo-Watson (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with OP, this photo is superior to the currently existing photo of Trump. The Oval Office background is also more aesthetically appealing than the brightly colored flags of the current photo's. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree this picture would be a better replacement for the current portrait in the infobox. His smile is usually a little offputting, but the quality of the image itself, and the color, are undoubtedly much better at representing Trump. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I also agree that this picture would be better than the current lead image. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Better choice -
Whitehouse.gov Top image
.jpg)
Edge4life42 -- A personally Edited image seems bit of iffy as a practice, and is subject to ownership issues. If the official portrait is not to be used, then I suggest that the whitehouse.gov top image is the next most authoritative one, which is | here. Out of the appallingly many hundreds of [| Trump photos on file] I think there is a copy of the uncropped root image | here. Use the whitehouse cropped image or use this root image or some other image from the .gov without local edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - whitehouse.gov Top image as it is much better. Atsme📞📧 09:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I think we are beyond the point of having Trump images where he has a mic in front of his face. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, microphone and background are distracting (unless one makes a decent crop without Pence's hands in the background). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, background of Pence and Ryan is certainly distracting along with the facial expression of Trump and the obscurity with the microphone. With this being said, I Strong Support the proposed Oval Office image to replace the Pentagon image as it is far superior and 'Presidential'. JLo-Watson (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Heads up about RFC
There's an RFC about whether Wikipedia should mention anywhere that the potential firing of FBI Director Comey was publicly discussed by both Democratic and Republican politicians before Trump fired him. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be helpful to have a section comprising words that Trump has made up - Examples would include the 'Covfefe' affair on Twitter; perhaps with a link to the "Donald Trump on social media" wiki page - Reference to Nambia at a recent UN conference
- Both of these instances can be supported by a number of reliable sources Jono1011 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}}template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)- We already do have a link for Covfefe which redirects to a section at Donald Trump on social media. I doubt if "Nambia" is ever going to get the level of coverage or reaction that "Covfefe" did. (There's even a proposed COVFEFE Act!) We don't need anything in this biographical article, however. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should be added to the protests section under the Protests section of 2016 Presidential Campaign part of the article.
Romil.j (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think so. The people in the picture are too small; it just looks like a picture of the bridge. We might want to use a picture of the protests, but it should be one that more clearly shows the actual protesting. You might consider using this picture at the article Golden Gate Bridge, with suitable explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
"Failed" in 2000
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.
"Trump had long expressed interest in politics before his failed 2000" Trump did not fail, he ended his campaign and did not compete so I FAIL to understand how he "failed" - could someone back this up? Also I should add his other campaigns should be mentioned within his top description. Fair? ThePlane11 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @ThePlane11: In 2000 he failed to win the election like he did in 2016. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- My initial response to that statement is...huh? [clarification needed] or [dubious – discuss] He didn't "fail" according to our WP article which states: Though he never expanded the campaign beyond the exploratory phase,.... Uhm...it indicates something entirely different to me. Atsme📞📧 18:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I meant in 2000 he didn't win the election, but he did in 2016. However we could consider a different wording regarding his previous dabbling in politics. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I saw that and I didn't like "failed" either. How about "short-lived"? --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I meant in 2000 he didn't win the election, but he did in 2016. However we could consider a different wording regarding his previous dabbling in politics. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- My initial response to that statement is...huh? [clarification needed] or [dubious – discuss] He didn't "fail" according to our WP article which states: Though he never expanded the campaign beyond the exploratory phase,.... Uhm...it indicates something entirely different to me. Atsme📞📧 18:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
"Failed" doesn't tell the whole story, since he didn't continue into election night but suspended his campaign midway through the primaries. "Short-lived" would be a better description. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Emir - no? He didn't lose the election neither. He ended his campaign in February meanwhile the election finished in November. @ everyone else, yes I agree short-lived is a far better word. I see the word "failed" as a biased personal attack on Trump. ThePlane11 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- He did not win the election in 2000. Short-lived should not be used without a reliable source calling it that. I found two sources [14][15]. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is there anything negative about Trump that you don't see as a biased personal attack? We need not and should not whitewash this or any other article. Once a politician has committed to a race, an early withdrawal is actually a worse campaign failure than making it to the general election and losing it. Common English usage is full of examples of non-loaded uses of the word failure, and this is one of them. Don't assign meaning that is not intended or implied; doing so is evidence of your bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Beg my pardon, but it'd be in the best interest of everybody to not degrade ourselves with personal attacks, he was only expressing an opinion no reason to start accusing him of whitewashing the article over a single phrase. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was intentional, therefore it is not a personal attack. I have not accused anybody of anything besides being seemingly unaware of the effect of their own bias, something that is not at all uncommon in Wikipedia editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Beg my pardon, but it'd be in the best interest of everybody to not degrade ourselves with personal attacks, he was only expressing an opinion no reason to start accusing him of whitewashing the article over a single phrase. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I see that the whole phrase - "prior to his failed 2000 campaign and his successful 2016 campaign" - has been deleted, leaving just "had long expressed interest in politics". I endorse that removal and I think it solves the whole problem under discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Mandruss - I believe in the strongest possible terms if you asked people about that context, the majority would assume (not know) that Trump lost the election when he didn't lose nor win. It should be worthwhile mentioning that he self-ended his campaign, if his campaign failed I automatically assumed he failed (lost), there must be evidence of people in previous election where they were winning the election and self ended their campaign, not really "failed" - that's a totally different meaning. As I've said before Wikipedia has an enormous amount of power and many people from different countries etc would think he competed in the end of the election and lost whereas he didn't. It should be very clear in my opinion. The reason why I said I think it is a biased attack is because I know the large majority do not share the same views as Trump and some hate him. Of course the opposition can be biased in a context where it's validated (created and day-to-day run by the left wing, mostly left wing articles) of course it makes sense. But however I'm a little off, I don't think "failed" is the MOST appropriate and clear word. If someone with my intelligence has a hard time distinguishing the meaning, well that indeed says something and proves my point. ThePlane11 (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree, but the issue has been rendered moot by the removal of the passage. Further discussion on this page would therefore violate WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Edit request on advertisement stle language
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The piecdmentioning that Donald's uncle "helped design X-ray machines that prolonged the lives of cancer patients." could be edited to sound less as a compliment. --189.125.91.2 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Done I agree that the wording has a WP:PUFFERY feel and I changed it to a more neutral "X-ray machines used to treat cancer". --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Authority by association in Ancestry?
The style of reference for John G. Trump may be puffery, or attempt to improve image by association. The cited reference does not talk at all about John Trump's contribution to prolonging lives of cancer patients (though this is referenced in the John G. Trump wikipedia page).
Suggest removing the phrase "which helped prolong lives of cancer patients", and stick with his professional facts:
He was a professor at MIT from 1936 to 1973, involved in radar research and the design of hospital X-Ray machines. Bigtastyrich (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Done See below. (I said "used to treat cancer" because there is a difference between diagnostic radiology (which is what people would think of with "hospital X-ray machines") and therapeutic radiology (which is what he worked on). --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Change link for Impeachment reference
The link referenced is to a 3rd party online news site. Credibility is strengthened if the link is changed to the official HB-438 link to the House of representatives page [1]
Bigtastyrich (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done We usually use secondary sources rather than primary sources for this kind of reference. However, that section links to our article Efforts to impeach Donald Trump where there is more information including a link to the bill itself. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Accusations of bigotry
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should a new section be added regarding accusations of Trump's bigotry (racism, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia)? Avisnacks (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Survey
- Support Agree with Avisnacks. There is near-universal consensus among the American public - including part of the coalition that elected him - that he is openly a bigot. The overwhelming evidence of a history of lawsuits against him faulting him with racial profiling, the many public statements confidantes have made about him lying and being an insensitive person, and his open rallying of alt-right causes confirms it. Of course there is bipartisan dispute about insinuating someone is a "bigot" on their page, but if something like this is warranted, the sheer moral opprobrium over having it done should not be what stops the community from doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff18 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support There is a mainstream contention on the left that Trump is a bigot. While the right mostly denies this, a discussion of the underlying facts is overdue. Avisnacks (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe Depends upon wording, sourcing, due weight and other factors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose As per WP:NPOV, mostly. 104.247.233.128 (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:UNDUE on the main article. However, I support including this in Public image of Donald Trump, an article that was deleted a while ago but warrants re-creation since a lot of sources have discussed his public image and reputation, and probably more so than any other politician that has an equivalent "public image" article. I would suggest including accusations of racism and bigotry there. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Every person is at least a bit racist. Unless Trump is openly racist and speaks publicly about white supremacy and hatred of other races, it is pointless to point out Trump is a bit racist. I'm sure he is, but there's nothing special about it. 38.121.89.51 (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral - I'd support inclusion of accusations on the page about his presidency, but I'm hesitant to include them on the BLP as they may be undue. But in the grand scheme, his presidency is the most "due" thing in his biography I guess. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybeis a good word, as it'd depend on how it is presented. From racial bias cases against him in the 70s, to statements made on the campaign trail targeting Mexicans, to the hiring of Steve Bannon and to the tepid criticism of Charlottesville neo-Nazis, this persons decades-long issues with race are well-documented. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Undue for main BLP, a discussion could be had on his presidency article perhaps. Also half the sources listed below are opinion pieces and not acceptable for this material in a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support but the sources need to be rock-solid (not opinion pieces) and the wording has to be unambiguous in the sources. Have to be very careful about this area, obviously. But I think there's enough to warrant a section. Rockypedia (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE not appropriate. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Lean Oppose. A good case can be made for this. But, I tend to think it should only come up in connection with actions in office; in which case it would belong in a different article. There is already mention of his violations of the Fair Housing Act in Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump. Besides, this could require a year of RfCs. Objective3000 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – Undue minefield of emotional opinions. — JFG talk 04:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
| WP:DENY sock |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Weak Oppose I'm not convinced at the moment that such a section is necessary, or that we should build one on the basis of commentator opinions only. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
| WP:DENY sock |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Oppose - partisan violates WP:BLPSTYLE, and WP:LABEL too. This is silly, asking for a whole section carte Blanche to list unlimited emotional opinions and general character insults without stating any support or notable incident basis. Just reads like asking if it is ok to make this an attack page. Markbassett (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - Violates WP:BLP as attack page. Jdcomix (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Jdcomix: Actually, there's nothing in WP:ATTACK that is relevant to this RfC. What is being proposed is a section discussing the numerous, well-sourced accusations of bigotry et al. Please actually read the proposal before commenting on RfCs in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I read the entire proposal, but thanks for the tip. I still stand by my strong oppose !vote, it violates BLP. Jdcomix (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- How does it violate WP:BLP? Just saying it does isn't sufficient rationale for your !vote to mean anything. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)". One could argue the proposed section violates all three of these, though personally I think it just violates NPOV and NOR. I can point to more examples if you'd like. Jdcomix (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- And one could argue the proposed section violates none of these as well. There are numerous reliable sources that document Trump's bigotry, and acts thereof. There's a clear case to be made that this is a defining characteristic of Trump, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)". One could argue the proposed section violates all three of these, though personally I think it just violates NPOV and NOR. I can point to more examples if you'd like. Jdcomix (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- How does it violate WP:BLP? Just saying it does isn't sufficient rationale for your !vote to mean anything. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I read the entire proposal, but thanks for the tip. I still stand by my strong oppose !vote, it violates BLP. Jdcomix (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Jdcomix: Actually, there's nothing in WP:ATTACK that is relevant to this RfC. What is being proposed is a section discussing the numerous, well-sourced accusations of bigotry et al. Please actually read the proposal before commenting on RfCs in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - violation of WP:BLPSTYLE, section for attack is undue and will open door for emotional editorializing. Specific actions can have mention of attacks by critics of that action, which can include an accusation like this. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support. There are a plethora of reliable non-opinion sources about this, are there not? Isn't this a major feature of Trump's life, way beyond his campaign and administration? I have read and re-read the many good-faith oppose !votes, and I don't see any that are grounded in our policies or guidelines. Simply saying that such a section would be undue is meaningless. WP:UNDUE is about fairly summarizing the reliable sources. The reliable sources have discussed Trump's bigotry (or lack of bigotry) at tremendous length. Not including substantial content on this issue would be undue. And no one is proposing making an attack section. Assuming good faith, the proposal is to make a neutrally presented section about a tremendously noteworthy aspect of Trump's biography. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
*Support. Our hands are tied. We must reflect coverage given by reliable sources. That the term is subjective, and that in this case it is used exclusively and selectively by his political opponents, is completely irrelevant policy is policy we must call Trump a bigot and in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia has been accused in the past of having a left-wing the bias and a hatred for Trump in particular,leading to biased and partisan coverage. We cannot let our reputation prevent us from calling a meanie a meanie. Marteau (talk) self revert my snark sometimes I can't help myself. Marteau (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Are you saying to simply ignore NPOV just so we can call Trump a racist? Jdcomix (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose mainly because the proposal is too vague. Moreover, it would be better to simply broaden the existing section about accusations of sexual misconduct rather than have an additional section on accusations of sexism. The accusations of antisemitism seem relatively minor to me, and there is much info to the contrary that we would have to include too (e.g. appointment of Jews to high government positions, warm welcome in Israel, Jewish grandchildren, et cetera). As for Islamophobia, I think his phobia in that regard is mostly more specific, i.e. a phobia about radical Islamic jihadists, but that subject is already covered with regard to his travel ban. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose We should, and do, mention his association with white nationalists. We should, and do, mention his issues with women. We should, and do, mention his anti-Islam proposals. Those are all factual, neutral, and proper for a biography. We should NOT get into name-calling like bigot, racist, etc. - just as we say "many of his statements are untrue" but do not say liar. Name-calling is inappropriate for an encyclopedia no matter how many sources do it. (BTW I don't know of any evidence that he is anti-Semitic - as convenient as it may be for people to assume that anyone who is a bigot is automatically against everything. His son-in-law is Jewish, his daughter converted to Judaism, he seems very proud of both of them - I think that is one accusation against him that doesn't stick.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as WP:UNDUE. "Bigot" is a very big word to strap into an article, and will result in nothing more than lots of drama even if it is stated as "just an opinion." Stikkyy t/c 05:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose may I suggest a refresher of NPOV, V, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL, WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE for starters? Atsme📞📧 17:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Atsme: You forgot WP:TRUMPSUCKS which trumps them all.[FBDB] — JFG talk 05:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I forget which policy/guideline it is, but generally speaking, we're not supposed to have sections devoted to controversies, which is essentially what this is, albeit by a different name. Instead, accusations of bigotry (where appropriate) should be covered within the existing sections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- AQFK see WP:Structure in NPOV policy - often overlooked when there are strong POVs. The problems are not isolated to controversies (policy basically states that if it's controversial, it's more likely to be false); there is also reference to criticism WP:BALASP, and an important section titled #Controversial subjects that also applies. Atsme📞📧 16:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose unencyclopedic name calling. Say what he does and let the reader decide if that is bigotry or not. It may be fine, for instance, to say that he gave white-supremacists a boost by implying a moral equivalence between neo-Nazi demonstrators vs. activists protesting racism. But straight up name-calling (bigot/racist/liar/idiot/etc.) is just unprofessional. Also WP:LABEL. ~Awilley (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support including a section/discussion about it, but not calling him that in Wiki voice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support People come to Wikipedia to learn about something they read elsewhere, and it's just a basic fact that an extremely large section of the American public thinks he is. For people who think he is AND for people who think he is not, this article should help them to decide for themselves. It's not about calling anyone X name or Y name. It's about including the incidents which people point to as why they see him as a bigot and letting the public decide for themselves if they share that view (source for what the public thinks about this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/01/7-percent-of-donald-trump-supporters-think-hes-racist/). Mavriksfan11 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose? - User:Markbassett sums it up pretty nicely. This seems way way too broad of a question for an RfC, and seems like a direct route for many many future instances of
We need to include my personal terrible seedy details because I interpret this very blanket RfC as supporting my very particular thing.
TimothyJosephWood 10:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC) - Support - Trump has made socially unacceptable ideological positions a feature of both his campaign and his presidency. There's plenty of support in reliable sources for the notion that Trump deliberately courts support from bigots, racists, xenophobes, sexists and other "deplorables" by adopting views and making public statements that align with these kinds of people and embolden them. He has encouraged or ordered policies that adversely impact immigrants, transgender people, refugees from non-Christian countries and more besides. He has employed people in his administration that promote or reinforce ideologies of white supremacy and xenophobia. He has boasted about his blunt, divisive language by raging against the "political correctness" that would normally prevent people from using such morally unacceptable terminology. There are thousands of articles in reliable sources that can provide references for all this stuff. There's so much of it, in fact, that it is impossible to ignore. His signature policy objective is to build a physical wall on the border the USA shares with Mexico, and he promotes it with openly xenophobic statements and sweeping generalizations. We have sections on Trump's business career and his media career. Trump's morally repugnant views are the third leg of the stool on which he has built his presidency, and for us to pretend this isn't the case is an injustice to the people who use Wikipedia. I wholeheartedly support a section that gives this stuff the same level of attention as his business and media stuff. It will be difficult to do, it will divide Wikipedians, but "it's hard" is not a good enough excuse to ignore our responsibilities. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose this site is not Mother Jones. We should not be stooping to such a low, vile and partisan level. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I believe the Supports are stooping to WP:DUE. Please stay focused on content policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support: These accusations are big part of his public image regardless of whether he truly is a bigot or not. Summoned by bot. Prcc27 (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. This is a terrible road to go down and a terrible precedent to set. Including partisan subjective accusations against someone's character is not appropriate for a biographical article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Who is suggesting we include "partisan subjective accusations" in this survey? There's more than enough citable material to document Trump's actual instances of bigotry, sexism, xenophobia, et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose in this article at this time: I think that WP:RECENTISM and related factors will make WP:NPOV- and WP:NOR-policing of the material essentially impossible here, and this article is already long. Plus it already covers some aspects of this, throughout, without dwelling on pro and con views. That's enough at least for the time being. I do think that an article on public perception of Trump will be (is?) needed, per WP:SUMMARY, that the material contemplated in this RfC would necessarily be a part of it, and that it might be possible to keep it encyclopedic, since it will be focused, and people will be looking for very specific kinds of problem edits. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Our primary and over-arching goal here is to document the "sum total of human knowledge" (Jimbo), and that includes opinions. Failure to deal with this is a censorship violation of NPOV (one of the worst types of NPOV violations) and failure to fulfill our goal (anyone who avoids this doesn't belong here). It's not as if there aren't enough very prominent statements from notable people in very RS. Just attribute them.
SMcCandlish is right that this could be a whole article subject, and the way to start, per SUMMARY, is to create a section which gets so large that it creates an undue weight situation and must be spun off. Let's get started. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I dislike that type of section which turns the article into a hit piece. It would be better to have a section on his attitudes toward minorities, which would be more balanced. Note that articles about people known for bigotry do not have these types of sections. TFD (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Unless we get to include accusations of Obama hating white people I'll have to pass. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Strong support. Regardless of our personal inclinations, it's undeniable that the world at large has published a huge amount of weighty material about this subject. It therefore meets GNG for inclusion, and in my opinion as a separate section. A lot of the votes above are based on some semblance of "this is a wasp's nest let's avoid it," which I personally find horrifying. It is precisely because something is contentious and inflammatory that it becomes notable, and therefore requires inclusion. Wikipedia is supposed to be the best clean-up of the mess of our world. And just shoving the huge amount of press coverage on this topic under the rug is not a good idea.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support An almost unprecedented amount of material has been published in reliable sources from books to newspapers about Trump's attitudes towards minorities. It has been one of the defining issues of American politics for the past few years. It would be unfathomable to ignore that given our role in informing millions of people. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and we should not allow political censorship to be a consideration. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
- Four respected sources (Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, Nicholas Kristof of the NYT, Vox, and Rolling Stone) have concluded that Trump is a bigot (and/or racist). Respected news sources on both the right and the left have reported a variety of accusations against Trump's bigoted actions, bigoted statements, and tacit support of bigotry. World leaders, politicians, and opinion writers all over the spectrum have criticized him for these varied acts and words. While reporting of Trumps actions and statements have been heightened as a candidate and president, many writers have traced this theme throughout Trump's life. That said, it is absolutely crucial that this section sticks to the verifiable facts and avoids truth-value statements about Trump (e.g. "Trump is a racist"), because those kinds of statements are hotly disputed. Avisnacks (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not even close to the WP:LABEL guide of 'wide' use - this is just an opinion piece, an NYT election piece, a Vox piece reusing the NYT piece, and Rolling Stone saying Charlottesville response was too slow. Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that Trump should not be described as racist as per WP:LABEL guide ("widely used by reliable sources"). But I think that the accusations are broad enough (this includes Paul Ryan calling one of Trump's statements the "textbook definition of a racist comment") that they merit discussion in the same way that his "awards, honors, and distinctions" do. Avisnacks (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I get triggered when somebody uses Vox as a "reasonable source". Its like the liberal Breitbart with Ezra Klein being the left-wing counterpart of Steve Bannon. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that Trump should not be described as racist as per WP:LABEL guide ("widely used by reliable sources"). But I think that the accusations are broad enough (this includes Paul Ryan calling one of Trump's statements the "textbook definition of a racist comment") that they merit discussion in the same way that his "awards, honors, and distinctions" do. Avisnacks (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not even close to the WP:LABEL guide of 'wide' use - this is just an opinion piece, an NYT election piece, a Vox piece reusing the NYT piece, and Rolling Stone saying Charlottesville response was too slow. Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note. 2 of the votes above are IP users with 4 edits between them, all to this page. I'd suggest that these and future RfCs are limited to confirmed users. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- ValarianB GeoLocate reveals that the track to the same hood in Toronto. Will file an spi with cu request, remembering beans. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think I only understood 1/3rd of that. :) But it looks like they can figure out if they're the same person or in the same place, so sounds good, thanks. :) ValarianB (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- ValarianB GeoLocate reveals that the track to the same hood in Toronto. Will file an spi with cu request, remembering beans. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Responding to @Shibbolethink and AusLondonder: Please note that we already have several paragraphs about his attitude toward Muslims in the "Immigration" section. We have a section about his "pandering to white nationalists" in the "Campaign" section. We have a paragraph about his "birther" claims under "Early involvement in politics. We have a whole section about his attitude toward women in "Sexual misconduct allegations". This subject has not been "ignored", nothing has been "shoved under the rug", and there is nothing "censored" about this article. The only question at this RfC is whether to start a whole new section about "accusations of bigotry". At this article we have preferred to avoid name-calling words like "liar" or "bigot" but simply to let the facts speak for themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit this because there are facts that are wrong. 71.55.177.130 (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not done Please specify what you believe should be changed, clearly and specifically - for example, "please replace (existing wording) with (your proposed new wording)." --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- An edit request is not a request to edit. See Wikipedia:Edit requests. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- True. But the person alleged that there are facts that are wrong, and I think it's only common courtesy to give them a chance to specify what they mean. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, maybe I'm AGFing too much. That user has done nothing but vandalize and is currently blocked. Still, I like to respond to such requests with courtesy. It doesn't cost anything. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- No disagreement here. Just correcting the obvious misconception on their part, that an edit request is "please grant me the ability to edit". Your first reply didn't do that, or at least not very directly. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Author as a profession in lead section?
Shouldn't his occupation as an author be listed along with businessman and television personality? Even when taking into account that most of them were (at least) co-written by other people and fall in the business category, he has published 19 books in total, most of which made best-seller lists and made considerable profit. It basically revolves around the question whether it can be included in his businessman/politician epithet or already deserves recognition of its own.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- See Curremt consensus #17. You can also search the archives for “author” to see many discussions. Note: The Obama article also omits author. Objective3000 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Almost all celebrities co-author books. I don't think it is worth mentioning unless the works were significant independent of their author, like those by Jeffrey Archer and Michael Dobbs. TFD (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agree here, most other articles about businessmen such as Warren Buffett, Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos do not list author as profession either but oddly Bill Gates does (I don't think it should be listed there though). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was all set to say "of course he's not an author" until you pointed out he's got 19 books to his name, and it's more than just memoirs and such like most politicians do... he's written business books. I think he qualifies as an author by any objective standard, although I could understand an argument being made that his status as an author is eclipsed by his more prominent achievements. Marteau (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd also say the sheer number and sales of his books could qualify him, though I'd also agree it could be subsumed under his businesman/politician career. I guess it's a question of preference...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Of the 19 books, how many did he actually write? It looks like 3 at the most, and possibly it is zero. Almost all the books are written by others and he's just slapped his name on them. Definitely not ledeworthy. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd also say the sheer number and sales of his books could qualify him, though I'd also agree it could be subsumed under his businesman/politician career. I guess it's a question of preference...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change his birthday from 14th June 1946 to 26/09/17 because of the expression, 'Were You Born Yesterday?' LegendSkys (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: Lol SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 18:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change New York City to New York City, New York, U.S. on Trump's infobox. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- There's a consensus to keep it as only "New York City". Besides, it's pretty obvious we're talking about the New York City, and not New York, Missouri or New York, Texas. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Unnecessary level of detail, as noted above. Marking as answered. TheValeyard (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is that the reason for consensus, cause that contradicts nearly every other President's birthplace listed, including Theodore Roosevelt whom was born in the same place. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's the current consensus at this article (to see the discussion, click the link at #Current consensus item 2). Local consensuses are not required to be consistent with each other, nor is there any real reason why all Wikipedia articles about U.S. presidents should show the name of New York City in exactly the same way. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest you read WP:OSE. This consensus is for this article. Unless someone wants to open RfCs for other presidents' articles as well. And as far as I know, there is no prior consensus established on Teddy Roosevelt's article, so if you want to be WP:BOLD and change that or create a talk page discussion for that there, feel free to do so. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is that the reason for consensus, cause that contradicts nearly every other President's birthplace listed, including Theodore Roosevelt whom was born in the same place. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Citation Error
Hi there. I'm new to Wikipedia and doing an assignment for class where we find errors in the encyclopedia. The first error I've identified, is citation 625 in this article, which needs an author name and a date published. Please correct.--Jaobar (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I removed the "award". The ref says it's unconfirmed. It may be true, but appears there are over 85,000 honorary Kentucky colonels, including the Fonz, Phyllis Diller, Shirley Temple, etc. It could be added back with a valid cite. But, seems a bit silly. Objective3000 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Citation 600 does not work and I don't think the quote it references is correct. I may be mistaken though22mikpau (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2017
| | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
75.89.22.171 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 22:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)